新增消息 token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this creates a token, that expireTime defaults to '2999-12-31', and that the response follows a unified code/msg/data structure. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or side effects beyond creating a new token.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and action, then covers request parameters and the response format in three short sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it specifies required parameters, defaults, and the unified response including the returned token string. Minor gaps remain around authentication context and error cases, but these do not block correct invocation.

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 documents both parameters. The description mirrors the schema by stating name is required and expireTime is optional with a default, but it adds no meaning beyond what the structured schema already provides.

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 opens with the HTTP method and endpoint and clearly states the action as '新增消息 token' (add message token). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling token tools such as open_token_list, open_token_edit, and open_token_delete without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus the many sibling token/message tools. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusion conditions, or scenarios that would make another tool more appropriate.

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