use_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the validation endpoint (/auth/whoami), the persistent side effect (token saved to disk so future sessions reuse it), and failure handling (bad tokens rejected and not kept). It omits where the token is stored, how to revoke it, and error surface details.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the persistence behavior, then the user workflow. Each sentence adds information, though the markdown bolding and the slightly chatty framing of the preferred-path paragraph cost a little tightness.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description still covers what happens on success (account profile returned), persistence, and failure. It could say more about what the returned profile contains or what a rejected token looks like, but it is adequate for a one-parameter auth tool.

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% for the single 'api_key' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: the token is identified as a 'hyr_…' personal access token obtained from the login line, adding format and provenance meaning the schema lacks.

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 ('Activate'), a specific resource ('HyperRoute personal access token'), and the outcome ('return the account profile'). It also implicitly differentiates itself from the sibling 'login' by declaring itself the preferred authentication path, so an agent can route without opening both schemas.

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?

Clearly states when to use it ('preferred way to authenticate') and the exact user workflow (copy the login line from the Connect/MCP tab). It does not explicitly name or exclude the 'login'/'setup' siblings, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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