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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: '(shown once)' warns the agent the secret is not retrievable later, and 'a key can never grant scopes it does not itself hold' discloses the privilege-escalation constraint. It omits return shape and any rate/permission limits, but the key behavioral risks are covered.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety-relevant constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: that the key is shown once and that scopes cannot exceed the caller's. Minor gaps remain around naming rules and any limits on how many keys can exist.

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 67%, with preset and scopes already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the privilege ceiling on scopes ('never grant scopes it does not itself hold'), though it says nothing about the required 'name' 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 (mint) and resource (API key for this workspace), immediately distinguishing it from list_api_keys and revoke_api_key. The parenthetical scope qualifier further sharpens what kind of key is produced.

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 clear context for when to use it: handing a limited key to another agent. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (list_api_keys, revoke_api_key), but the use case and its safety framing make selection unambiguous.

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