set-access-token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is provided/refreshed and explains the expiresOn default behavior (ISO 8601, defaults to exp claim or 1 hour). This is meaningful beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action ('Provide/refresh'), and includes a parenthetical example without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, condition, and param semantics. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but those are less critical for a token-setting 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains expiresOn semantics in detail (ISO 8601, default behavior). The accessToken parameter is not explicitly described, but its role as the Microsoft Graph bearer token is implied. This partial compensation warrants a mid-range score.

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: to provide or refresh a Microsoft Graph bearer token. It specifies the resource (bearer token) and the action (provide/refresh), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-auth-status and visualize-identity by focusing on setting the token server-side.

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?

It provides clear context: use when USE_CLIENT_TOKEN=true, with an example (EntraPulse SSO). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the condition is stated clearly.

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