ac_CreateTermsToken

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a permission requirement but leaves it unspecified (empty list), failing to disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description does not explain what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it's idempotent, returns a token, or has side effects), leaving significant gaps.

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 brief (two sentences) but includes an incomplete permissions section that adds no value. The first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the second sentence is wasted space due to the empty list, reducing efficiency.

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 creates a token (a mutation with no annotations) and has an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, parameter usage, and behavioral context, though the output schema might mitigate some gaps.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (termsType) with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain what termsType is, its purpose, or how it affects token creation. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 purpose: 'Create a new UUID terms token for the customer to accept advertising terms.' It specifies the action (create), resource (UUID terms token), and context (advertising terms). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ac_GetTermsToken, which likely retrieves rather than creates tokens.

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 includes a placeholder for permissions ('Requires one of these permissions: []'), which implies usage depends on permissions but provides no actual guidance. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ac_GetTermsToken for retrieval) or any prerequisites beyond the vague permission hint.

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