create_api_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full access' which hints at security implications, but it doesn't disclose the sensitive nature of creating an access credential, potential permission requirements, or how the token is returned/stored. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the action and scope. Every word earns its place with no filler 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?

While the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the action of creating an API token with full access is security-sensitive. The description provides no context about token visibility, revocation, or cautionary usage, making it incomplete for an AI agent that needs to act responsibly.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'name' with the description 'Name/label for the new token'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Create a new cPanel API token with full access' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('cPanel API token'), and adds scope ('full access'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_api_tokens, rename_api_token, and revoke_api_token.

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 clearly implies the use case: creating a new token. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, the verb 'Create' and sibling tool names provide clear context. No explicit exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient.

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