create_worker_token

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: token lifespan (one-hour), redaction of accessToken in results, and the API endpoint. It does not mention side effects, but creating tokens is non-destructive. The information is sufficient for an agent.

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 highly concise: three sentences plus a bullet list of arguments. Every sentence adds essential information, and there is no verbosity. The structure front-loads the core action.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: auth requirement, parameter semantics, token lifespan, and result redaction. It is complete without needing to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the parameters: 'for_user_email: Active team member email' and 'for_user_id: Active team member numeric user id.' It also clarifies the constraint that exactly one must be provided, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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: 'Mint a one-hour user-scoped worker token (POST /v1/sub-tokens).' It specifies the action (mint), resource (worker token), and constraints (one-hour, user-scoped). The name matches, and there is no ambiguity with sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: requires a service-account API key and exactly one of email or user id. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the constraint is clear. Sibling tools are distinct, so no confusion.

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