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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: 'The previous token stops working immediately' discloses the key irreversible side effect, and 'Do not paste it in chat' flags the secrecy requirement. It does not describe the response format, but the instruction to save the new token implies what is returned.

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?

Four short sentences with zero filler and the core purpose front-loaded first. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, immediate side effect, then security handling. Nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what happens, what the side effect is, and what to do with the returned token. The remaining gap is the ambiguity around the parameter's role, which is inferable but not stated.

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 0% and the token parameter has no type description beyond 'string.' The description compensates partially: 'Replace the agent token' and 'Save the new one' imply the parameter holds the new token value and must be treated as sensitive, but it never explicitly states whether 'token' is the new value or the old one being revoked.

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 and resource: 'Replace the agent token.' This is clear and unambiguous about the operation performed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling recover_token through the verb 'replace' and the added side-effect detail, though it never explicitly names that sibling.

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 supplies operational guidance for handling the result ('Save the new one in MCP Authorization. Do not paste it in chat.') but gives no when-to-use instruction or exclusion against recover_token or other alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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