Перевыпуск API-токена

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

The description adds a critical behavioral detail not in annotations: the new token value is returned only once. It does not disclose whether the old token becomes invalid, but the provided one-time visibility is valuable and consistent with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key return behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with two parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and the one-time return constraint. However, it omits whether the old token is invalidated and any usage restrictions, leaving minor gaps for a mutation 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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action (reissue) on a specific resource (API token) and notes the one-time return of the new value. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_api_key, edit_api_key, and delete_api_key.

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 the tool is for refreshing an existing token, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as edit_api_key. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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