sophos_create_account_access_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that the token secret is returned only on creation and must be stored securely as it cannot be retrieved again. However, it does not mention potential side effects or authorization requirements, leaving minor 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, supported type and use, and critical secret note. It is front-loaded with the main action, no fluff.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers creation purpose, type constraint, and secret behavior. It lacks explicit mention of return value structure (e.g., token ID) and the optional expires_at parameter, but schema covers the latter. Overall, sufficient for an agent to understand core behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by stating 'Currently supported token type' (implying possible future changes) and the use case for downloading the Linux Sensor, but most parameter details are already in 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 explicitly states 'Create a new account-level access token for a tenant', clearly identifying the verb (create) and resource (account-level access token). It distinguishes from sibling tools like revoke_account_access_token or list_account_access_tokens by its focused purpose.

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 clear context on when to use: to create a token for authenticating Sophos Linux Sensor downloads. It mentions the only supported token type ('sophosLinuxSensor') and the one-time secret retrieval, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with update/revoke tools, which is acceptable given distinct operations.

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