configure_token_replacement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the core extract/inject mechanism and the global scope, but does not disclose whether existing rules are overwritten, whether it is a mutating operation, or any side effects on ongoing scans. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives concrete examples. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 description is complete enough for an agent to understand when to select the tool and what it does. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or whether configuration replaces existing rules, but for selection and basic understanding, it covers the essential context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about token extraction/injection but does not elaborate on specific parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. It neither adds nor detracts from the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Configure global token replacement rules to extract tokens from responses and inject them into subsequent requests.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation that distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_csrf_handling or configure_session_handling by focusing on token replacement.

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 second sentence provides clear usage context: 'Use this for dynamic tokens like CSRF tokens, API keys, or session identifiers that need to be captured and replayed.' This indicates when to choose this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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