Import existing PASETO

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

The description adds session-scoped context ('store in this MCP session') but does not disclose whether the token is validated, whether it replaces an existing session token, or any security implications. Annotations only include openWorldHint: false, so the description carries most of the burden and only partially meets it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, plus a useful alternative guidance. No filler or redundant information.

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, the description covers purpose and use case adequately, but lacks important context about import behavior (e.g., whether the token is checked, what happens to existing auth state) and does not mention return/error behavior. Since there is no output schema, those details would be valuable.

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 token parameter is described in the schema, but user_id has no description and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented user_id but does not.

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 a clear resource ('already-issued user PASETO in this MCP session'), distinguishing it from the wallet/email auth flow. It also gives a concrete example ('e.g. from a previous login') that clarifies the tool's role.

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 provides clear context: this is for reusing an existing PASETO rather than authenticating fresh. It also points agents to prefer wallet/email tools, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide exclusionary conditions.

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