avito_add_cabinet

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description discloses critical behaviors: the key will be placed in the chat transcript, and the cabinet is saved to ~/.marketplace-mcp/cabinets.json with chmod 600 and is never echoed. This adds significant context about data handling and security beyond the 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 well-structured with a clear warning first, then a concise list of arguments, and storage details. Every sentence adds value: risk, alternative, parameter details, and persistence information. It is not overlong and is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 tool with 3 parameters (one nested object) and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains parameter formats, default behavior, security implications, and storage location. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the 'credentials' parameter with concrete examples for Ozon and WB, the optional 'name' parameter with default naming behavior, and the 'i_understand_key_goes_to_chat' flag with its required value. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 add or update a cabinet (a named set of API credentials) from chat. It distinguishes itself from the safe alternative (installer) and from sibling tools like wb_add_cabinet and ozon_add_cabinet by mentioning the security risk of putting keys in chat.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when adding or updating a cabinet from chat, and explicitly warns about the security risk, requiring the user to confirm with i_understand_key_goes_to_chat=true. It also recommends the installer as a safer alternative, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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