beel_create_claim_token

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) but the description adds significant behavioral context: token validity of 30 days, invalidation of previous token on re-issue, rejection of mismatched email, and the side effect of handing over account ownership. It goes well beyond the annotations and discloses critical 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 description is relatively long but every sentence serves a purpose—core action, usage variants, invalidation behavior, alternative, and entitlement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and structured logically. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 sensitive operation like claim token issuance, the description covers usage scenarios, side effects, invalidation, and alternatives. It does not explicitly mention the HTTP endpoint (but that's in the description as 'POST /v1/accounts/{account_id}/claim-tokens') and omits idempotency behavior (schema covers). It lacks an explicit statement about return values, but no output schema exists. Given the complexity, it's fairly complete.

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 only 33% (account_id lacks a description), so the description compensates by explaining the semantics of email in detail (required when no holder, must match existing holder) and the body's purpose. It doesn't elaborate on language, but the schema does. It omits idempotency_key details, but the schema covers that. Overall, it adds value for the key parameter.

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 action ('Issues a single-use claim_token and the claim_url') and the resource (claim token for an account holder). It also distinguishes itself from the related invitation tool by explicitly noting that adding a further person should use invitations, avoiding confusion among siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: send email when no holder exists, omit body to re-issue, and details the rejection of mismatched emails. It also directs to the alternative 'POST /v1/accounts/{account_id}/invitations' for adding further people, and states the required entitlement, covering both use and non-use cases.

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