create_token

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. "Shown once" is a genuinely valuable disclosure (the secret is not retrievable later) and the POST endpoint signals a mutating call, but it omits permissions granted, auth requirements, and whether creation is revocable.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no waste. The bare "HTTP POST /tokens" line adds little for an agent but is harmless and confirms the operation is a write.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 3 params at low description coverage — this is a case where the description needed to explain the returned token shape and expiry behavior, and it does not. Only the "shown once" warning fills part of the gap.

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 only 33% — `name` and `expires_in` are undocumented beyond an example and an enum/default, and the description adds nothing about them. Only `sandbox` carries a schema description, so the description should have compensated for the expiry and naming semantics 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create a personal access token") that any agent can map directly. It is clearly different in kind from the sibling list_tokens and revoke_token, though it never names them explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (auth, which account the token belongs to), and no mention of alternatives such as rotating vs. creating. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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