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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the critical non-idempotent secret lifecycle behavior: the key is shown once and must be set immediately, and must never be stored in code or a committed file. It also confirms it never replaces a key and requires a paid plan, which is substantial operational context.

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 a single dense sentence with a second sentence on usage safety, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a creation tool, though slightly dense in the first sentence.

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 lack of an output schema and rich annotations covering safety hints, the description supplies all necessary behavioral context: one-time visibility, immediate secret setup, non-replacement, and plan requirement. An agent has enough 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 coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is already strong. The description adds contextual constraints but doesn't elaborate on appId or platform beyond what the schema provides; however, the schema itself is sufficient, and the description references platform indirectly via instructions.

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 states a specific verb ('Make the secret key') and resource, and ties it to the product and its use: 'the secret key @getvigilia/server sends this app's backend errors with.' It also constrains the scope to 'an app that has none yet,' distinguishing it from key rotation handled elsewhere.

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?

It explicitly limits use to apps that have no key yet and states that it never replaces an existing key, directing that case to the owner in Vigilia. It also notes the paid-plan requirement, giving a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundary.

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