forcepoint_user_token_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose 'Mutating and high-risk' and the authorizationKey condition, which are valuable behavioral signals. Yet it omits side effects like overwriting existing credentials, revocation behavior, or idempotency.

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 efficient sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately adding critical risk and authorization context. Every word earns its place; no 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?

For a 9-parameter, mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It covers purpose and high-level risk, but fails to explain parameter semantics, return behavior, error conditions, or overwrite semantics, leaving substantial ambiguity for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies bearer vs basic auth modes and the authorizationKey condition, but leaves userId, tokenLabel, notes, oauthApplicationName, and the exact relationships between authMode and credential fields unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('user-scoped Forcepoint bearer token or basic-auth credential in Vault'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like forcepoint_user_token_get and forcepoint_user_token_delete.

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?

It clearly identifies the operation as mutating and high-risk, and notes the conditional requirement for authorizationKey when admin auth is enabled. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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