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 validation via /auth/whoami, saving to disk, automatic reuse in future sessions, and rejection of bad tokens. It also mentions the security benefit (password not exposed). It does not cover potential side effects of disk storage (e.g., security implications or storage location), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 description is concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains the mechanism (validation and persistence), and the third provides context on why this method is preferred. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's action (saving a token to disk), the description covers what it does, what it returns (account profile), how validation occurs, persistence behavior, failure handling, and security rationale. No output schema exists, but the return is clearly stated. It could mention error responses or storage details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke it.

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 only parameter is 'api_key' with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that this is a personal access token with the 'hyr_…' prefix, clarifying the expected value format and purpose. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't explicitly map 'api_key' to the token phrase.

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 the tool's function: 'Activate an existing HyperRoute personal access token (hyr_…) and return the account profile.' It uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource, and distinguishes itself from authentication siblings like login (password-based) and whoami (profile query) by focusing on token-based activation and persistence.

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 explicitly positions this as 'the preferred way to authenticate' and explains why (user mints token on website, password never enters conversation), giving strong contextual guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly or state when not to use this tool, only implying the distinction from other auth methods.

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