sbis_add_cabinet

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the security warning about the key entering the chat transcript, the persistence location (~/.marketplace-mcp/cabinets.json, chmod 600, never echoed), and the add-or-update semantics that align with idempotentHint=true. It does not restate the safety profile already covered by annotations, which is the right call.

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?

Front-loaded with the security warning, then the alternative, then structured Args. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the literal '({fields})' and doubled-brace '{{"token": "..."}}' templates read as unfilled formatting artifacts that add slight noise.

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 mutating, nested-object tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything the agent needs: the write target, the security tradeoff, the required consent flag, per-service credential shapes, and naming fallback. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: credentials is explained with per-service concrete examples (Ozon client_id/api_key, WB token), name documents its default-naming fallback behavior, and the flag's required value is spelled out. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb+resource and defines the resource inline ('a named set of API credentials'), which disambiguates it from the credential-related siblings like sbis_set_key and sbis_use_cabinet. The 'from chat' qualifier and the installer contrast make the tool's identity unambiguous.

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 frames when to use this (chat-based add/update) versus the recommended alternative (install.py / double-click, where the key never enters chat). It also states the precondition (i_understand_key_goes_to_chat=true) required to proceed, so routing and gating are both covered.

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