Авторизовать расширение через OAuth

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, outward-facing, non-idempotent call. The description adds useful context: the output is a link with 'protected state' and the flow completes externally. It omits link expiry, single-use state semantics, and callback behavior, so it modestly extends the annotations rather than richly supplementing them.

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. The action is stated first, the follow-up instruction second. Every word 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?

For a two-parameter OAuth-initiation tool with no output schema, the core need — knowing a link is produced and must be opened externally — is covered, and annotations carry the openWorld/non-idempotent profile. It would be stronger if it noted link lifetime or any callback/precondition, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% — both 'extension' (with format/pattern and a pointer to extensions_list) and 'case' (with default-resolution semantics) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it creates an OAuth link ('Создаёт ссылку OAuth') for the extension. This is clearly distinguishable from the other extensions_* siblings (list/get/save/delete), which deal with extension data rather than auth. However, it never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives procedural guidance for the result — 'Откройте её в браузере и завершите вход на стороне внешней системы' — which tells the agent the link must be handed off to a browser. But it says nothing about when to call this versus checking existing auth, prerequisites, or what to do afterward. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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