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

Adds critical behavior not conveyed by readOnlyHint=false alone: the secret is returned exactly once and cannot be shown again, and the tool previews until confirm is true. It still omits scope/permission details and whether the key is immediately active, but the one-time secret disclosure is important.

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 compact sentences with the one-time secret warning front-loaded before the confirmation note. There is no wasted text and the most important operational warning is prominent.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return-value risk and confirmation gate. It is not fully complete about key scope or permissions, but it gives enough for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description explains only the confirm behavior, which is already documented in the schema. It does not describe the required name parameter, such as whether it is a label, identifier, or must be unique.

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 an API key,' and adds the intended use, 'for connecting another MCP client.' It is clear and distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_api_keys or revoke_api_key.

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 a clear usage context: connecting another MCP client. It also explains the confirmation workflow, but does not state when to avoid using it or name alternatives such as list_api_keys or revoke_api_key.

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