begin_agent_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that no API key is required, that it returns an openUrl, and that the openUrl must be opened immediately so the owner can approve. It does not mention failure modes or behavior when ap_ already exists, but the prerequisite is stated.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence names the action, the second covers the trigger and prerequisite, the third explains the parameter, and the final sentences give the required follow-up and a prohibition. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

This is a one-parameter initiation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the trigger, prerequisite, parameter meaning, expected return value, immediate required action, next step, and user-handling rule. Nothing essential is missing for the agent to execute correctly.

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 documents the client parameter with its allowed values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why the parameter matters—'so the browser page knows which host opened the link'—and recaps the exact allowed values, giving the agent purpose beyond the schema text.

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—'Start AgentPay browser connect'—and identifies it as the first call in the connection flow, triggered by a concrete user phrase. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like poll_agent_link by framing this as the initiating step and explicitly naming the next step.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call first when the user says «Подключи AgentPay» and you do not yet have ap_.' It also provides follow-up instructions ('Then poll with poll_agent_link') and a clear negative directive ('Never ask the owner to copy ap_ from the cabinet').

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