configure_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses session scoping, but says nothing about overwriting an existing token, permission or auth prerequisites, persistence beyond the session, rate limits, or any error behavior for an invalid token — all relevant for a credential-setting mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier ('for this session') is placed where it matters without padding.

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 one-parameter configuration tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description plus schema is nearly self-sufficient. The only real omission is how this relates to the get_access_token sibling, which an agent would have to guess.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema itself ('Parsley API bearer token'), which the description merely repeats. Baseline 3 for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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 (set the Parsley API bearer token) plus the scope (this session), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_access_token, leaving an agent to infer the relationship between obtaining and configuring a token.

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 only usage cue is the phrase 'for this session.' There is no statement of when this must be called, whether it should follow get_access_token, whether it overwrites an existing token, or whether it is required before other Parsley calls.

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