nexo_create_app_token

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavior: 'The plain-text token is returned ONCE — embed it in the generated snippet and never store it elsewhere.' This warns about the token's one-time availability and storage instruction, which is essential for correct usage. Could be improved by mentioning permissions or idempotency, but current info is solid.

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 very concise: two sentences in the main description (one for action, one for usage) plus the one-time return warning. Every sentence adds value. No fluff. Front-loaded with the API endpoint and purpose.

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 simple creation tool with 4 parameters (all documented in schema), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and a critical behavior (one-time return). It lacks output format details, but no output schema exists. Could mention error cases, but the description is reasonably complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (every parameter described in schema). Description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, e.g., it does not further explain 'abilities' or 'expires_at' beyond what's in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because schema already does the heavy lifting; description doesn't add significant new semantic info.

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?

Description clearly states: 'Create a persistent AppToken for the current user via POST /api/auth/app-tokens.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (AppToken), and the HTTP endpoint. The use case (embedding in a user's website snippet) further clarifies its purpose, distinguishing it from other tools in the large sibling list.

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?

Description gives explicit context: 'Use this when a card needs to mint a token that will live inside a snippet the user pastes on their own website.' This provides clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to select this tool appropriately.

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