sbis_add_cabinet

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the key is placed in the transcript, that the credential persists to ~/.marketplace-mcp/cabinets.json, that the file gets chmod 600, and that the key is never echoed. These side effects are valuable and not present in annotations, and nothing contradicts readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important security warning before transitioning to parameters. Every sentence adds necessary information; the warning, alternative, and parameter examples are all purposeful.

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 is very complete for a write tool: security, storage, permissions, parameter shapes, and fallback naming are all covered. The only minor gap is the unresolved '({fields})' placeholder for services beyond Ozon/WB, and it does not spell out update-overwrite semantics, though output schema and annotations cover some of the remainder.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: it explains credentials as a dict, gives concrete Ozon and WB shapes, defines optional name with fallback behavior, and explains the i_understand_key_goes_to_chat gate. This is exactly the meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 states a specific action ('Add or update') on a well-defined resource ('cabinet' = named set of API credentials) and scopes it clearly ('from chat'). This sits apart from siblings like remove/use/list by verb and resource, and defines the core object.

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 warns that the key enters the chat transcript, requires i_understand_key_goes_to_chat=true, and names a concrete safer alternative (installer) for cases where key-in-chat is unacceptable. This is clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance.

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