generate_sso_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the agent knows this is a non-repeatable write-like action. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that the token is 'one time' (single-use), but says nothing about expiry, scopes, or whether prior tokens are invalidated — the details that would actually change how an agent sequences calls.

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 short but not tight: the bracketed HTTP path plus a second sentence that restates the first ('Generate one time SSO token' / 'Generate an one time SSO token...'). The duplicate phrasing and the 'an one time' grammar cost it a point without adding meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back — a token string, its lifetime, and how it is consumed. It delivers only 'one time' and leaves the return value and expiry undocumented, which is a real gap for a token-issuing tool, though the low parameter count keeps the overall risk moderate.

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?

Only one optional parameter (x-trace-id) exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, so the description has little room to add value. It offers no parameter guidance of its own; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Generate one time SSO token') and scopes it to 'the authenticated user account', which tells an agent what it produces and for whom. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like generate_client_secret or get_auth_code, so an agent must infer which credential-minting tool to pick.

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 phrase 'for the authenticated user account' implies the context of use (an already-authenticated session), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the many sibling token/secret tools. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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