authCreateBearerTokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation) but provides no information about permissions required, whether tokens are immediately active, what happens on duplicate names, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a security-sensitive token creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 brief (two sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. The second sentence provides syntax guidance but includes a confusing example ('fabrics=[{...}]') that doesn't match the actual parameter name ('tokens'), creating potential confusion rather than clarity. The example should either be correct or omitted.

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 token creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after token creation (are tokens returned? in what format?), doesn't mention authentication requirements for this sensitive operation, and provides minimal guidance about parameter usage. The confusing example further reduces completeness. A security-sensitive creation tool needs more comprehensive documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'tokens' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'required fields' but doesn't specify which are actually required (schema shows required: []). The confusing 'fabrics' example doesn't help clarify parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add') and resource ('bearer tokens'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'one or more' tokens, which adds useful scope information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like authGetBearerTokens or authDeleteBearerToken, which would require mentioning it's for creation rather than retrieval or deletion.

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 provides basic syntax guidance ('pass the required fields as direct arguments') but offers no contextual guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication requirements), when creation is appropriate versus using existing tokens, or how this relates to sibling auth tools. The example with 'fabrics' is confusing since it doesn't match the actual parameter name 'tokens'.

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