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 it discloses the important traits: the token is validated before use, then persisted for future sessions, and the credential avoids exposing a password in chat. It leaves out failure behavior (what happens on an invalid token) and any expiry/revocation semantics.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and credential, followed by the side effect and the sibling comparison. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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 one-parameter authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers what the agent needs: what to supply, where to get it, what happens to it, and why to prefer it over `login`. Only failure and expiry behavior are unaddressed.

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 single `api_key` parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does so by giving the expected prefix format and the exact UI path to generate the token, which is enough to populate the field correctly, though it does not say whether whitespace/prefix stripping is handled.

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 (log in) and the exact credential type expected (personal access token prefixed hyr_…), which separates it from the sibling `login` tool that uses a password. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (`login`) and states this one is preferred, with the reason (no password in the chat). It also tells the agent where to obtain the token. It stops short of stating when-not conditions, e.g. when no token exists yet, so it is not a full routing rule.

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