othos_auth_set_personal_token

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions setting a token and optional persistence but omits side effects like overwriting, authentication impacts, or security considerations (e.g., token storage). This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentence makes it concise but lacks structure; no front-loading, bullet points, or clear separation of mandatory vs optional aspects. Acceptably brief but could be better organized.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain the token's role in authentication, whether setting overwrites an existing token, or what the return value indicates. Context is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 50% (only 'savePath' has a description). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, failing to clarify the 'token' parameter's format, length constraints beyond minLength, or how 'savePath' should be used. It partially compensates by noting optional persistence but insufficiently.

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 ('Set'), the resource ('personal access token for Othos'), and the optional persistence to disk. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'othos_auth_create_personal_token' (creation) and 'othos_auth_login_with_personal_token' (usage).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'othos_auth_create_personal_token' or 'othos_auth_login_with_personal_token'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or context.

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