Create API token

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses crucial behaviors: the plaintext token is returned only once and never again, and a maximum of 10 tokens can exist per order. This meaningfully informs the agent about security-sensitive and quota-related behavior, though it does not cover error conditions or exact response structure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: creation intent, token access, one-time plaintext warning, quota limit, and scope guidance. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 three parameters, a nested scope object, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context well: what the token does, its one-time return, the quota, and the scope parameter choices. It stops short of explaining what happens on errors or how to recover if the limit is reached, but the overall definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between scope.has_all_mailboxes and scope.mailbox_ids in plain terms, clarifying the either/or choice for scoping current and future mailboxes versus specific ones.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an API token for the given mail order.' It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling operations like mail_listAPITokensV1 and mail_revokeAPITokenV1 by defining the creation intent and the token's scoped access to mailboxes.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: when a token is needed for a mail order, with a hard limit of 10 tokens per order. It also gives concrete guidance on choosing scope via has_all_mailboxes versus mailbox_ids, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list or revoke token tools.

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