Set Auth Token

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds key behavioral detail: the token is used as-is with no automatic Bearer prefix, and clear=true removes the current token. This informs the agent of subtle security/format implications that annotations do not capture.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by essential usage details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool without repetition or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation: setting/clearing auth for swagger_call_api, including the token format nuance. It could mention persistence across calls or how to view the current token, but such details are not necessary for basic correct usage.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage, with detailed descriptions for both clear and token. The description reinforces the 'no automatic prefix' rule but adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The reference to swagger_call_api is contextual rather than parameter-specific.

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: dynamically setting or clearing the Authorization header for swagger_call_api. The verb-resource pairing is specific (set/clear + Authorization header), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by being uniquely focused on auth management.

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 indicates the tool is used for swagger_call_api, giving clear usage context. It explains how to set a token and how to clear it via clear=true. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it; given that it's the sole auth tool among siblings, the context is clear enough.

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