Подтверждение входа кодом (шаг 2)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers: session persistence (saved locally, ~60 days), code one-time nature and short validity, failure behavior (kills the 2FA request), and a security caveat (code appears in dialog history). This is exemplary transparency for a sensitive auth operation.

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 compact and information-dense, with each sentence adding meaningful operational or security context. It's slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place by covering a distinct aspect: completion, session lifetime, code expiry, failure mode, and security note. The most critical operational detail (call immediately) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter auth completion tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, what happens on success and failure, and a security warning. The session lifetime and code expiry are critical operational details that are all present. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'code' parameter with its type, minLength, and description. The tool description adds context about the code's one-time nature and urgency, but doesn't add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: completing login by accepting a code from an email. It explicitly identifies this as step 2 of the authentication flow, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wata_auth_login and wata_auth_status. The verb 'Завершает вход' (completes login) is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit timing guidance: call immediately after receiving the code because it expires in minutes. It also states that a failed attempt invalidates the second-factor request, requiring a restart of the login process. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the flow context is sufficient.

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