create_resource_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose behavior such as whether the token is shown only once, any authentication requirements, or security implications beyond the simple 'create' action. The Core/Enterprise restriction is mentioned, but other behavioral traits (e.g., irreversible creation, possible need for admin privileges) are absent.

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 concise sentences with the main purpose stated first and an example second. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of non-schema context. It conveys the purpose and gives an example, but it does not describe the return value or success behavior. This is adequate for a simple creation tool but leaves gaps that could mislead an agent about what to expect after the call.

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 100%, so all parameters are already explainable. The description adds a concrete example (databases=["mydb", "testdb"], actions=["read", "write"]) that clarifies the expected array syntax and usage. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 ('Create'), specific resource ('InfluxDB resource token'), and a clear scope ('with specific database permissions', 'Core/Enterprise only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_admin_token and cloud_create_database_token, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly notes 'Core/Enterprise only', which tells the agent not to use it for cloud environments (where cloud_create_database_token would be appropriate). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other token types (e.g., admin tokens), so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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