create_admin_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does state the permissions granted and a key limitation (cannot manage other admin tokens), plus the Core/Enterprise requirement. However, it omits operational details such as whether the token is returned in the response, how authentication is handled, or behavior if a token with the same name already exists.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second clarifies capabilities and limitations. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence contributes value.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool, the description covers the essential action and the token's permissions. However, it lacks explicit mention of the output (token string) or how the token is meant to be used afterwards, which is important for an agent. The absence of an output schema heightens this need. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema documents the only parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'named admin token' which aligns with the parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own description. There is no additional context about naming conventions or format.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('new InfluxDB named admin token'), and the key attribute ('full administrative permissions'). It also distinguishes from sibling token tools by specifying 'admin' and 'Core/Enterprise only', making it unambiguous which tool to select.

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 implies usage when full administrator-level access is needed and mentions a limitation ('cannot manage other admin tokens'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_resource_token or cloud_create_database_token. There is no direct 'use this when' guidance, only inferred from the permissions described.

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