Выпустить API-токен терминала

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the most important non-obvious behaviors: the token value is shown exactly once (save to WATA_ACQ_TOKEN), the valid lifespan (1–12 months), the per-terminal limit (1–5 tokens), and the IP whitelist condition. That is substantial behavioral detail beyond trivial 'creates a token' wording.

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 written on 3 sentences with no fluff. The most operationally important fact (one-time display, save it) is front-loaded, followed by constraints and IP requirements. Every sentence carries weight.

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 3-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main concerns: what it does, the safety constraint, the limit, the lifetime, and the IP restriction. It doesn't explain the response structure, but that's acceptable since no output schema is provided and the token visibility warning is the essential runtime detail.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the token, the one-time display behavior, the IP restriction, and the expiration constraints, which enriches the agent's understanding of expirationMonths (1–12) and validates the meaning of name for distinguishing tokens.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates a new JWT for the acquiring public API, and the title 'Выпустить API-токен терминала' matches. The generic tool name is clarified by the concrete statement of what it produces, and the sibling list (wata_terminal_api_tokens_list, wata_terminal_api_token_revoke) clearly contrasts this creation tool from listing/revoking tokens.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is applicable: creating a new API token for a terminal, with a constraint of 1–5 tokens per terminal. It doesn't explicitly say 'use list instead' or 'use revoke instead', but it implies the creation purpose and the limits are useful for deciding before calling.

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