hh_add_cabinet

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the API key is placed into the chat transcript, requires an explicit acknowledgment flag, is saved locally to ~/.marketplace-mcp/cabinets.json with chmod 600, and is 'never echoed.' These are critical security-relevant behaviors, fully fitting the add/update operation without contradicting the idempotentHint.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a high-visibility security warning, and a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the most decision-relevant fact (key goes to chat) is front-loaded.

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?

Having an output schema reduces the need to document return values, and the description otherwise covers purpose, parameter details, storage location, permissions, transcript exposure, and alternative workflows. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool is missing.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for parameter semantics and succeeds: credentials is explained with concrete examples for Ozon and WB, name is described as an optional label with fallback behavior to shop name or 'main', and i_understand_key_goes_to_chat is documented as a mandatory gate. This is far richer than the bare input 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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'Add or update a cabinet (a named set of API credentials), from chat.' This clearly separates the tool from siblings like hh_list_cabinets, hh_remove_cabinet, and hh_use_cabinet by focusing on creating/updating a credential-storing cabinet rather than querying, removing, or selecting it.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when the tool is appropriate ('from chat') and when to avoid it, naming the installer as 'the terminal-free safe alternative' where the key 'never enters chat.' The requirement that i_understand_key_goes_to_chat must be true provides a concrete condition that gatekeeps usage.

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