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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical one-time-secret behavior ('raw key is returned once'), which is a meaningful mutation trait. It omits permission requirements, whether scopes default to unrestricted access when null, and irreversibility/lifecycle details.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the essential fact (one-time key return) is front-loaded alongside the action.

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 security-sensitive creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain scopes semantics, default behavior when scopes is null, and required permissions to be safely callable.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. 'Bot-scoped' loosely implies bot_id, but the optional 'name' parameter and especially 'scopes' (nullable, default null) are never explained, leaving the agent guessing at the most security-relevant parameter.

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 ('Create a new bot-scoped API key') and even shows the key prefix format. The create verb naturally separates it from sibling list_api_keys and revoke_api_key, though it never names them explicitly.

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 raw key is returned once' implicitly tells the agent to persist the value immediately, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (admin permissions, bot ownership), and no pointer to revoke_api_key for lifecycle management.

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