wb_add_cabinet

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing that the key is placed in the chat transcript, that it requires the i_understand_key_goes_to_chat flag, that the cabinet is saved locally with chmod 600, and that the key is never echoed. These are critical behavioral details not present in the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false).

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, an args section, and storage details. Every sentence adds value: the warning is critical, the arg explanations are precise, and the storage info reassures about security. It is not verbose despite covering complex topics.

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?

The description covers all essentials: what the tool does, the security risk, the required flag, parameter formats, auto-naming behavior, and persistence details. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: credentials as a dict with required fields and concrete examples for Ozon and WB, name as optional with auto-naming fallback to 'main', and i_understand_key_goes_to_chat as a mandatory safety gate. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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: 'Add or update a cabinet (a named set of API credentials), from chat.' It uses a specific verb (add/update) and a concrete resource (cabinet) and provides examples for both Ozon and WB, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like wb_set_key or wb_remove_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 provides a when-to-use versus when-not-to-use directive: it warns that the key goes into the chat transcript and recommends the terminal-free installer as a safer alternative. This gives clear context for choosing this tool over the installer, and implicitly over other in-chat credential tools.

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