token_create

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 does not disclose that the returned token is a secret typically shown only once, what permissions are required, or that creation is irreversible. For a credential-minting mutation tool this is a significant omission.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the tool is a security-sensitive mutation.

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?

A write/credential tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, two of them required. The description omits the conditional requirement logic (channel_id needed for channel tokens) and any behavioral context, leaving the agent under-informed for a sensitive operation.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema itself, including token_type, group_id, and channel_id semantics. The description adds only the general server/channel distinction already fully covered by the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 new privilege key/token for server or channel group access' clearly states what it does and the scope of access it targets. It is distinguishable from the read-only sibling token_list, though it does not name that sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., token_list) and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The phrase 'for server or channel group access' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when creation is appropriate.

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