create_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 that the token value is '(shown once)', a genuinely non-obvious and consequential trait (the secret cannot be re-retrieved). However, it says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the token is immediately active, or side effects of creation, leaving meaningful gaps for a credential-minting operation.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core action. The second line 'HTTP POST /tokens' is an implementation detail of marginal value to an agent, but it costs little. No filler or 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?

This is a mutating, credential-creating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter description coverage. The description does not explain the sandbox-scoping implications, the default 90d expiration behavior, or what the caller receives back beyond the hint that the token is shown once. It is under-specified for the operation's complexity.

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 only 33%: the 'sandbox' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'name' and 'expires_in' are not described there. The description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The '(shown once)' note is not tied to any parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a personal access token'. The parenthetical '(shown once)' further narrows what kind of token this is. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_tokens or revoke_token, but the create verb makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 create a token versus retrieving one, no prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), and no mention of the sibling alternatives list_tokens or revoke_token. The only usage-adjacent signal is the '(shown once)' caveat, which is a warning rather than routing guidance.

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