create_api_token

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that the response is a live secret credential, that its lifetime is governed by API_BISCUIT_TTL_SECONDS, and that redaction may mask it. It stops short of explaining the API-user prerequisite or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is created and returned. The trailing 'Redaction may mask it' is terse to the point of being cryptic, slightly weakening an otherwise efficient structure.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating that only the token is returned and that it is a secret. The credential prerequisite ('Needs an API user') is asserted without explaining how to obtain one, which is the main residual gap for a credential-issuing tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the username/password pairing rule already documented in the schema and never mentions the 'payload' override semantics, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a BunkerWeb API token (Biscuit)' plus the return shape ('returns only the token'). No sibling in the list creates tokens, so there is no confusion to resolve, but the description also does not explicitly position itself against anything, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Clear invocation conditions: 'Give username and password, or omit both to use the server's credentials' and 'Needs an API user.' No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance are named, though no sibling tool competes for this job.

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