create_security_token

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

Annotations already carry idempotent, destructive, and read-only hints, and the description does not contradict them. It adds 'transient' and the endpoint, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or what happens when a token is issued.

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 short, front-loads the purpose and endpoint, and lists each argument in one compact line. No wasted words, though the 'Args:' section mostly restates constraints.

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 two-parameter, idempotent operation with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks guidance about when to use it relative to the sibling auth/token tools and does not explain the security or authentication implications of creating the token.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description carries the full burden. It states the exact only-supported value for each parameter ('delegation' and 'all'), giving agents actionable constraints even though the meaning of the parameters is not expanded further.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('Transient Tokens') and includes the endpoint POST /security/token, so an agent can understand the operation despite the create_* tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling auth/token tools such as create_auth_token or create_auth_jwk.

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 sentence indicates when to choose this tool over alternatives or mentions prerequisites or context. Sibling tools include several token- and auth-related endpoints, but the description gives no selection rule.

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