yandex_submit_code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect — the token is persisted to OS storage — which is more than nothing. However it says nothing about failure modes (invalid/expired code), token lifetime, or what the caller gets back, which matters for a state-mutating auth step.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the step-role front-loaded and the mode exception second. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A state-mutating auth tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover more: it omits prerequisites (must yandex_login run first?), error behavior on a bad code, and what a successful call yields. The step-2 framing and the storage side effect are useful but leave real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single optional parameter, so the schema already explains both the 'code' argument and its localhost exemption. The description's note that no arguments are needed in localhost mode duplicates what the schema already states, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: exchanging a confirmation code for a token, explicitly framed as 'step 2 of login', which positions it against the yandex_login / yandex_auth_status siblings without naming them. An agent can tell this is the token-exchange step rather than the credential-entry step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context (step 2 of the login flow) and an explicit mode-dependent rule: in localhost mode it is called without arguments. It stops short of naming the preceding tool or stating what to do if the code is missing/expired, so it is clear guidance without full routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.