Вход в кабинет (шаг 1)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends credentials, requires a second factor, and that arguments appear in plain text in conversation history – a critical security behavior. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and required next step; the second delivers the preferred usage and security warning. Well front-loaded and to the point.

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-step authentication flow, the description tells the agent exactly what to do (send credentials, then call wata_auth_verify) and how to avoid leaking credentials. No output schema is needed for this step, and nothing an agent needs to call 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?

The schema already provides per-parameter descriptions with the same guidance ('Лучше не передавать', use env vars). The description reinforces this and adds the security rationale, which is valuable beyond the schema but doesn't introduce new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Отправляет email и пароль') and resource (login step), and explicitly names the next step (wata_auth_verify), distinguishing it from auth_status and auth_logout siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer calling without arguments to use environment variables, and warns against passing the password directly, with the condition 'только если другого способа нет'. This clearly routes the agent to the preferred invocation.

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