avito_add_cabinet

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals the key security side effect (key in chat), local file storage path and permissions, and naming fallback behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema flags.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a security warning, and an Args list. The warning about i_understand is slightly repeated (in the ⚠️ line and the Args line), but this redundancy is minor and does not hurt clarity.

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 mutating tool that stores credentials, the description covers required parameters, side effects (file storage, chat exposure), the required confirmation flag, and naming behavior. Since an output schema exists and annotations already describe safety, no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains `credentials` as a dict with service-specific examples, defines `name` as optional with a fallback rule, and mandates `i_understand_key_goes_to_chat`. This is far beyond the raw JSON schema.

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 states 'Add or update a cabinet (a named set of API credentials), from chat.', which names a specific verb, resource, and context. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like avito_list_cabinets, avito_remove_cabinet, and avito_use_cabinet.

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 explicitly warns 'This puts the key into the chat transcript', requiring a consent flag, and points to the installer as a terminal-free alternative where the key never enters chat. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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