vk_add_cabinet

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it warns that the credential enters the chat transcript, states the exact bypass flag required, documents the storage location, permissions (chmod 600), and that the value is never echoed back. The idempotentHint=true is corroborated by the 'add or update' framing.

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 destructive caveat before anything else, then structured Args with no filler. Given the 0% schema coverage, the parameter detail is load-bearing rather than redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a write tool that persists secrets, the warning, flag requirement, storage path, and per-service credential shapes are all present — nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains credentials as a service-dependent dict with concrete examples for Ozon and WB, describes name's default-name fallback behavior, and states that the acknowledgement flag must be true.

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 precise verb pair (add/update) on a well-defined resource, and even defines the resource inline as 'a named set of API credentials'. That definition cleanly separates it from siblings like vk_use_cabinet, vk_remove_cabinet, and vk_set_key.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (i_understand_key_goes_to_chat=true) and names a genuine alternative path (the installer, where the key never enters chat). It does not, however, contrast the tool against its closest siblings (vk_set_key / vk_use_cabinet) when choosing between them.

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