vk_put_user_469503905adb

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that the token cannot be seen again after generation, which is a critical irreversible side effect. It also mentions that authentication is required. It does not detail response format or behavior when a token already exists, but the disclosed traits are significant 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 four sentences, each purposeful: action, endpoint mapping, irreversible behavior, parameter guidance, and authentication requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, behavior, parameter routing, and authentication. It may lack explicit return value details, but the irreversible token generation is noted. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes a generic 'body' field. The description adds crucial semantics: how to pass the JSON payload, that path/query parameters are top-level fields, and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted. This goes beyond the schema's minimal coverage and helps the agent construct parameters correctly.

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 action ('Generate a caldav token') and resource ('caldav token'). It also identifies the raw REST proxy endpoint, distinguishing it from other Vikunja operations. The purpose is specific and 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?

The description implies usage context: when a caldav token is needed for the caldav API. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions, but the clear single-purpose nature and endpoint reference provide sufficient guidance for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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