nexo_create_app_token

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token is returned only once, must be embedded in a snippet, and should not be stored elsewhere. However, it omits details like idempotency, error conditions, or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition/endpoint, usage scenario, and critical warning. No unnecessary words, well-organized and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the most important behavioral aspects. It could be more complete by noting potential failures or idempotency, but overall sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with good parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional semantic info beyond the schema; it focuses on overall behavior rather than parameter details.

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 starts with a clear imperative 'Create a persistent AppToken' and specifies the REST endpoint. It distinguishes well from the many sibling tools by focusing on a unique authentication token creation action.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a card needs to mint a token that will live inside a snippet the user pastes on their own website.' Also includes a critical warning about the one-time return of the plain-text token, guiding proper handling.

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