vk_put_tokens_3408c99d9d37

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it contradicts the input schema by calling the body field 'optional' while schema marks it as required. It also fails to disclose what the response looks like or any side effects, making this misleading for an agent.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it repeats 'Create a new api token' twice, which is redundant. Still, it is short and organized well enough.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values and success behavior, but it doesn't. It mentions authentication and parameter handling, but omits what the agent should expect after invocation. The schema contradiction adds to the incompleteness.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'body' parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description incorrectly states the body is 'optional' (schema requires it). It does add useful context about JSON payload and parameter name aliases, but the contradiction significantly reduces reliability.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new api token' and 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy for PUT /tokens.' It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying creation on behalf of the user, which sets it apart from delete/get token tools.

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 usage context: it's a raw REST proxy, requires authentication, and explains how to pass parameters (body field, top-level fields, aliases). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for distinguishing from other token tools.

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