create_api_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says the token is created 'in the Database' but does not disclose whether the token is shown only once, its lifetime, required auth, or that it is a long-lived (LongLiveTokenIn) token. This is a significant gap for a security-sensitive credential-creation 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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the trailing keyword list ('create, add, new, make, write, post, mealie') is pure filler that adds no semantic value and bloats the definition.

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 credential-minting mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain token lifetime, visibility, and required permissions. It leaves all of that to guesswork.

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 nested body object is undocumented. The description adds no explanation of the 'name' and optional 'integrationId' (default 'generic') fields, so an agent cannot know what values are valid or what the integration id does.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Create api token' with the HTTP endpoint POST /api/users/api-tokens. It distinguishes from siblings like get_token, refresh_token, create_invite_token by naming the exact resource, though the keyword spam dilutes the signal.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not clarify how this long-lived API token differs from get_token, refresh_token, or oauth_login, leaving the agent to infer selection among several token-related siblings.

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