Create personal token

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, leaving the description as the primary behavioral disclosure source. The description usefully discloses that the raw token is returned only once (a critical one-time-visibility behavior) and that admin permission is required. These add real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: one states the purpose, the other discloses the critical one-time-return behavior and the admin prerequisite.

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 token creation tool with no output schema referenced, the description covers the key behavioral facts: single-return of raw token, admin requirement. With 4 parameters and low schema coverage, it could have elaborated more on scope/expiration semantics, but the essential agent decision-making info is present.

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 only 25% (only 'name' has a description). The description adds the crucial semantic that the returned value is a raw account-wide token visible only once, which helps understand parameter intent. While it doesn't detail expires_in_days or scope semantics specifically, the description compensates somewhat for the low schema coverage by explaining the token's nature.

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 'Create a personal access token' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like revoke_personal_token and list_personal_tokens, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 mentions 'Requires an admin PAT' which gives a prerequisite, and the context of 'raw account-wide token returned once' implies single-use visibility. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs create_api_key or create_project_api_key, which are closely related siblings.

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