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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that the old key stops working immediately, the new secret is returned only once, and the secret becomes visible in the AI conversation context. It also reveals the 2FA requirement and access prerequisites, giving the agent a complete picture of side effects and constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary operational details (2FA flow, access). It is longer than ideal but well-organized with explicit 'Agent usage' and 'ACCESS' sections, ensuring every sentence contributes value. The structure helps the agent parse prerequisites quickly.

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 complexity (2FA dependency, security implications, access control), the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly how to prepare (call start_2fa, poll, then call), what to expect (secret only in this response), and what access is needed. Without an output schema, it still covers all operational essentials.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'id' as 'API key ID to regenerate', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description reiterates that the ID and settings are preserved but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Regenerate an API key, issuing a new secret while keeping the same ID and settings.' It specifies the verb, resource, and key differentiator (preserves ID/settings) that separates it from sibling tools like create_api_key or revoke_api_key. The added detail that the old key stops working immediately further clarifies the operation.

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 provides explicit usage context: it requires 2FA and gives a step-by-step prerequisite flow (start_2fa, wait, poll, then call). It also mentions access requirements (Proof account, authentication). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over create_api_key or revoke_api_key beyond the inherent semantics, so it lacks a direct 'when-not' comparison to siblings.

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