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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the authorization requirement (owner only), the credential scope limitation (only the logins you name), irreversible one-time disclosure ('Shown once; we store only its hash'), and reversibility (revocable). These are exactly the traits an agent must know before generating a secret.

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?

Four short clauses, zero waste, and the most safety-critical fact ('Owner only') is front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct fact the agent needs.

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 small two-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything material: permission gate, what the returned secret is and that it is shown once, its scope, and how to revoke it. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the gist ('the logins you name') and implies the label identifies the bot, but adds no format, naming, or validation detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Make a per-bot key (vk_...)') plus the key's defining constraint: it can only open sessions on named logins. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like save_login, open_session, and revoke_bot_key.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Owner only') and routes the agent to the sibling that undoes it ('Revoke any time with revoke_bot_key'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of contrasting itself with alternatives for other key/credential flows, so not a 5.

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