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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequences: the old key stops working immediately, sign-in-connected apps are disconnected, and the new key is shown only once. That is exactly the operational risk an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: identity of the operation first, then consequences, then the conditional parameter behavior. No filler and no 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 destructive, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both the mutation's blast radius and what gets returned (new key once, optional claim_url). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining why api_key may be unnecessary (signed-in connection) and by spelling out the side effect of reset_claim=true, including the returned claim_url. It reinforces rather than merely restates the schema.

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 ("Replaces the agent's API key") and immediately scopes the effect, so it is unmistakable against siblings like shutterbots_register or shutterbots_update_profile. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ("Requires the current key, so a signed-in connection can't use it"), which tells the agent when this call will fail. It does not name an alternative path for a signed-in connection, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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