yandex_auth_finish

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description goes well beyond them, disclosing concrete side effects: 0600 token file writes, hot-reload with no restart required, and that the token is never returned. These are exactly the operational details an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool does and the success behavior, then the secret-handling constraint, then the invocation condition. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the 'never returns the token' note covers the key secret-handling expectation. However, for a mutating auth tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotation detail on file locations or override behavior, the definition leaves 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 0% for three parameters (wait, account, max_wait_seconds), so the description carries the burden of explaining them and does not. 'Poll' loosely implies the wait/max_wait_seconds semantics, but the meaning of 'account' and the effect of wait=false are entirely unaddressed.

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 specific actions: polling a pending device-code auth and, on success, writing token files with hot-reload. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling yandex_auth_status, which by its name likely also polls auth state, leaving ambiguity about which to call for a simple status check.

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 explicit sequencing: 'Call after the user confirms in the browser,' which clearly scopes when this tool is appropriate. It does not name the alternative (yandex_auth_status) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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