vk_post_user_1a3ddc942173

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the raw proxy behavior, input handling (body vs. top-level fields), aliases, and authentication requirement. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a simple token renewal tool, the essential behavior is well explained.

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 core purpose. Each sentence adds unique value—purpose, endpoint, constraint, input format, aliases, and auth—without 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple single-param tool: what it does, when it works, how to pass inputs, and auth requirements. It could mention response details beyond the token itself, but the return value is adequately stated.

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 only has one generic 'body' field, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining the JSON payload, the existence of top-level path/query parameters (despite additionalProperties false), and camelCase/snake_case aliases. This goes well beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool renews a link share token, specifies the raw Vikunja REST proxy endpoint (POST /user/token), and differentiates from countless siblings by limiting to link share tokens. The verb 'renew' and resource 'link share token' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly notes 'Only works for link share tokens,' providing a clear when/when-not boundary, and states authentication is required. It does not name alternative tools for non-link-share tokens, but the exclusion is strong enough to guide usage.

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