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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that the token is shown ONCE and never again, instructs to copy it and set as BRAINKB_TOKEN, warns to treat it like a password, and notes server-capped expiration. These are critical behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action.

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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: action, prerequisite, security warning, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-param tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It implies the return value ('the returned token'), covers the entire lifecycle (creation, storage, reuse, expiry), and includes security guidance, leaving no important gaps for the agent.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining `name` as a label with an example ('laptop') and `days` as lifetime with a default (90) and server-capped limit. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema properties.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Generate a Personal Access Token (PAT)') and its purpose ('for browser-free auth'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brainkb_login and brainkb_use_token, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides a prerequisite ('Requires you to be logged in already (brainkb_login or brainkb_globus_login)') and describes the post-condition ('no login or browser is needed until it expires'). This gives clear when-to-use context within the authentication flow, though it doesn't mention alternatives like brainkb_use_token, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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