Create Expiring Access Token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the under-development warning, the exact permission requirement ("Read, update & delete anything"), the delegation semantics of scoped tokens, and the note that the call may share access, notify people or incur provider charges. This is strong disclosure; only return-format behavior is left unaddressed.

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 development alert is front-loaded, which is good, but the description is verbose and repeats scope/permission details that already live in the schema, so not every sentence earns its place. Structure is navigable via headings but the payload is heavier than necessary.

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 mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the permission model, the confirm requirement, the delegated-authorization behavior and the maturity caveat. The remaining gap — what the call returns and how the secret result file relates to it — is partly addressed by the schema, leaving it largely complete.

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 83%, so the schema documents the critical fields (scopes, expires_at, authorizations, confirm, secret_result_file). The description restates the `confirm=true` requirement and the scope concept but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("creating expiring access tokens") and names the concrete use cases: iframe embeds and REST API requests authorized by the token's authorizations. An agent can distinguish this token-minting operation from the sibling read tool `get_current_token` without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when the token is applicable (iframe embeds, REST API with the `all:delegate_to_contact_permissions` scope) and states the required permissions and the `confirm=true` prerequisite. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming a sibling alternative, but for a niche token-creation endpoint the positive conditions are well covered.

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