vk_add_cabinet

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

It discloses the key behavior beyond annotations: the key enters the chat transcript, a confirmation flag is required, the data is saved to a local file with chmod 600, and it is never echoed. This is valuable risk context that annotations alone do not convey.

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, front-loaded with the security warning, and each sentence carries meaningful information: purpose, risk, parameter details, and storage location. The Args block is scannable and avoids redundant restatement of the schema.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested credentials object and no schema-level descriptions, the description supplies all needed context: what credentials look like, optional naming behavior, the required ack flag, and where the data lands. An agent can invoke the tool correctly without extra inference.

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 takes full responsibility for explaining parameters. It provides concrete credential examples for Ozon and WB, explains the name fallback behavior, and clarifies that i_understand_key_goes_to_chat must be true, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: "Add or update a cabinet (a named set of API credentials), from chat." It clearly distinguishes this credential-storage tool from siblings like vk_use_cabinet and vk_remove_cabinet by focusing on the add/update semantics and the stored cabinets.json file.

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 gives clear context: this is the in-chat path for adding a cabinet, and it names the installer as the safe terminal-free alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vk_set_key, so it falls just short of fully explicit when-to-use versus alternatives.

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