Создание API-токена

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the token value is returned only once and must be saved. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds necessary security-related context. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or authorization requirements, so it stops short of 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 create tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential warning about the one-time token return. It does not describe the full response structure, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, with all four parameters individually described. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Создает новый API-токен' (Creates a new API token). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (delete_api_key, list_api_keys, edit_api_key, refresh_api_key) make the creation purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for creating tokens but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like edit_api_key or refresh_api_key. It does offer a caveat about saving the token value, which is useful context, but lacks direct usage versus alternative comparisons.

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