wsauth_add_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing: whether files are modified in the directory, whether api_key is used as a signing secret, what 'token-based' means concretely, or whether the operation is idempotent. An agent cannot anticipate any side effects.

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 single sentence is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful beyond the name's own content and gives an agent no operational detail.

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 2-parameter tool with an undocumented api_key, no annotations, and no output schema, in the vast auth/websocket sibling cluster, this description is far from adequate. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what the tool does to the directory, or what success looks like.

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 50%: only 'directory' is described ('Project directory'), and api_key has no schema description. The tool description adds no meaning for either parameter — an agent is left guessing what api_key is for (a signing key? a provider credential?) and how it relates to the required directory. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Add token-based WS auth' essentially restates the tool name 'wsauth_add_tokens' — verb and resource are present but at surface level. It does not say what 'adding tokens' actually involves (generating JWTs, configuring middleware, storing credentials) and does not distinguish this from siblings like wsauth_generate, jwt_add_refresh, or auth_generate_jwt.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent auth/websocket siblings. No mention of whether it pairs with wsauth_generate, whether it is for existing setups, or what prerequisites (an existing WS server, a configured auth system) must hold.

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