zmp_set_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the write target (project local .env file), which is genuine side-effect context, but it omits overwrite semantics, whether the file is created when absent, and whether both values must be supplied together.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and ending with the concrete write target. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 3-parameter config writer with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and target, and the schema covers parameters. However, it lacks the when-to-use context and the relationship between optional appId/token that an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds modest value by mapping the parameters to the .env keys APP_ID and ZMP_TOKEN, but contributes no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 names specific actions (save/update) and concrete resources (APP_ID and ZMP_TOKEN in the project local .env file), so the agent knows exactly what this tool does. It is clear but does not differentiate itself from a sibling like zmp_sync_config, which may also manipulate project config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as zmp_sync_config or zmp_create_app, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. needing a token before build/deploy). Usage must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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