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

Adds two non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: the plaintext secret is returned exactly once and must be stored immediately, and the caller must be an org owner/admin. It leaves one ambiguity — whether 'rotation' invalidates the previous key or whether revoke_agent_key must be called separately.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the usage condition, then the two operational warnings. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is wasted.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the missing piece an agent would otherwise guess at (the one-time plaintext return) plus the authorization requirement. Combined with a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the name default, the scope enum (including that enforcement is planned), and both required slugs. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Mint') and resource ('new API key for an agent member'), with the scope of the organization. It is trivially distinguishable from the nearest sibling, revoke_agent_key, and from create_agent, without opening any schema.

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?

'Use for rotation or additional keys' gives a concrete trigger condition, and 'Requires organization owner/admin' states a prerequisite. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., revoke_agent_key for retiring an old key) or explicitly excluding first-time issuance via create_agent, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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