forcepoint_mcp_http_token_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Mutating and high-risk' and mentions the authorizationKey requirement, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not explain the side effects of an update, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens to existing tokens, 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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides important risk and auth context. Every word 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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, or operational details like whether the token is immediately active or how updates affect existing tokens. For a high-risk mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 8 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description provides no parameter explanations. It only indirectly mentions authorizationKey as a requirement. None of token, scopes, userId, tokenId, audience, expiresAt, or returnToken are explained, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Create or update a user-scoped MCP HTTP bearer token stored in Vault', specifying the verb (create/update), resource (MCP HTTP bearer token), and scope (user-scoped, stored in Vault). This distinguishes it from sibling token tools like forcepoint_user_token_set or forcepoint_mcp_http_token_revoke.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as forcepoint_user_token_set or forcepoint_mcp_http_token_get. It only mentions a prerequisite ('requires authorizationKey when admin auth is enabled') and a caution about risk, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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