set_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context: the token is saved and applied immediately without restart. However, it does not mention potential overwriting of an existing token, permission requirements, or any side effects, leaving some transparency gap.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and source, while the second communicates the key behavioral trait. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 the low complexity of a single-parameter setter and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is saved, where the token comes from, and that it applies immediately. It omits minor details like overwriting behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major completeness gap.

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 already fully describes the single 'token' parameter with its zmcp_ prefix, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that the token is user-created at /bots/mcp-tokens and that saving it takes effect immediately, which helps the agent understand the token's provenance and effect.

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 a specific action ('save') and a specific resource ('personal token'), and further specifies the token prefix (zmcp_) and its source (/bots/mcp-tokens). This uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which deal with token persistence.

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 context for when to use this tool: when a user has created a personal token at /bots/mcp-tokens and it needs to be saved. It notes that the changes apply immediately without restart. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but given the unique purpose, the guidance is sufficient.

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