api_tokens_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, and it does disclose an important behavioral trait: the admin-JWT-only auth requirement. It omits other behavior an agent needs — the confirm/preview gating, whether the secret is returned only once, and irreversibility — so it adds value but is incomplete.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the auth note is useful, but 'POST /api/tokens' duplicates the operation already conveyed by the name, and 'Tags: API Tokens Controller' is framework noise that earns no place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It covers auth but omits the confirm/preview semantics and, critically for a token tool, whether the generated token value is returned once and cannot be retrieved again.

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 ~50%, but the nested body properties (name, scopes, expiresInDays) and the confirm flag all carry their own schema descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already documents the fields.

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 a new API token'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read tools (api_tokens_get_api_tokens, api_tokens_get_scopes) and delete tool (api_tokens_delete_api_token). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stays just 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 gives one meaningful precondition — the endpoint cannot be used with an API-key and requires an admin JWT — which is genuinely useful routing context. However, it never states when to create a token vs. using existing ones, and does not reference the sibling token tools as alternatives.

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