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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the one-time plaintext return, the impossibility of re-retrieval, the handling warning (never commit the token), and that privileges default to none. These are the operationally decisive traits for a credential-issuing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and tightly packed with the security warning, sibling routing, and prerequisite — no filler sentences. The single long paragraph with nested parentheticals is dense, though still readable and every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value (plaintext token, shown once) and the follow-up revoke path. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: name is the identifier used later for revocation, privileges default to none and a privilege-less token "can do very little," and expireAt omitted means no expiry. It doesn't restate the ISO 8601 example already in the schema, which keeps it additive rather than redundant.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a new API token for the Bridge app") and its scope is clearly distinct from the sibling list_api_tokens and revoke_api_token, which it names. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives and prerequisites: "Use revoke_api_token to destroy one" and "Before writing app code that consumes this, call get_integration_guide with topic=team and the framework the app uses." It also gives a granting policy ("grant only what the consumer needs"), so when-to-use is fully covered.

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