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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the secret key is returned by the call, existing project keys are unaffected, and the caller needs `projects:write` permission. This is useful behavioral context for a non-idempotent create operation and does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, with useful rationale for separate keys and the permission requirement. The opening line slightly repeats the title, but the remaining sentences earn their place.

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 create-secret-key operation with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: it returns the secret, requires project write permission, and does not invalidate existing keys. It could say more about the returned key's one-time visibility or format, but the essential context is present.

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 description implies project selection ('for a project') and per-app/per-computer naming, but it does not explicitly explain the `request.id` or `request.body.name` fields. The nested schema does document both fields, but the top-level `request` wrapper has no description and the stated schema coverage is low, leaving some gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: create a project API key. It also distinguishes the output as a secret API key returned by the call, so an agent can confidently tell this apart from project CRUD or other create tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use one key per app or computer so keys can be revoked independently, and notes that existing keys keep working. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the intended scenario is clear.

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