sassy_setup_generate_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool creates a secure token and saves it to ~/.sassymcp/tokens.json, which is a concrete side effect. It stops short of explaining whether existing tokens are overwritten or if any prerequisites apply, leaving some behavioral ambiguity, but it is more transparent than many tools.

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 primary purpose, followed by behavior, usage, and parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, making it well-structured and concise.

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 token generation tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, file persistence, and usage instructions. It omits details about return values, but an output schema exists, so that's not a gap. A minor omission is the lack of discussion about overwriting or idempotency, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 input schema has no descriptions for either parameter, but the description compensates by clearly explaining both: client_id as an identifier with examples and scopes as comma-separated permissions with valid values. This full compensation for 0% schema coverage merits the highest score.

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 'Generate a new auth token for MCP client authentication,' which uses a specific verb and identifies a unique resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sassy_setup_wizard or sassy_setup_status, which are about setup checks rather than token generation.

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 the intended use of the generated token ('Use this token in SASSYMCP_AUTH_TOKEN env var or in client config'), giving clear context for when this tool would be relevant. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but since no sibling tool generates tokens, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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