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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the auth constraint (wallet-session only), the likely API_GAP failure mode for agents, and the critical 'show once, never log' secret handling rule.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action and endpoint come first, then the operational caveats. The final fragment ('show once, never log') is terse but earns its place as a security-critical instruction; nothing is padded.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers auth context and secret handling, which is the most important gap. However, with 0% param coverage and zero required params, it leaves the caller without guidance on scopes/ttl defaults, so it is only minimally complete.

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% and the description documents none of the three parameters (label, scopes, ttlDays). The word 'scoped' faintly gestures at the scopes array, but no syntax, limits, or meaning is conveyed, so an agent must infer everything from the bare schema.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create scoped user API token') and includes the endpoint, so an agent understands it mints credentials rather than listing or revoking them (cf. siblings memeswap_list_credentials / memeswap_revoke_credential). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers context on how the endpoint is normally reached ('wallet-session only on portal; agents get API_GAP or one-time secret once'), which implies when it will succeed or fail, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing or prerequisites for the caller.

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