auth_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add a meaningful side-effect detail: 'Сессия сохраняется на диск' (session is saved to disk), which clarifies persistence. However, it does not mention whether an existing session is replaced, what happens on invalid/expired code, or any security implications beyond the login action.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short clauses that front-load the purpose and then add the key behavioral detail about session persistence. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or boilerplate text.

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?

For a tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call shape and the persistence side effect. But it leaves out the expected usage sequence relative to auth_send_code, what a successful response looks like, and failure behavior. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does identify both parameters: 'номер' maps to phone and 'код из SMS' explains that code is the SMS verification code. This adds useful meaning, but it omits details like phone number format, country code expectations, or code length/character constraints.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Завершить вход' (complete login) using phone and SMS code, and notes that the session is saved to disk. It identifies the specific resource (authentication/session) and the required inputs, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though 'finish login' implies contrast with auth_send_code.

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?

The phrase 'Завершить вход' (finish login) implies this should be used after a verification code has been sent, likely by sibling auth_send_code. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention prerequisites, or give any exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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