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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: encrypted at rest, key never leaves the workspace, the BYOK billing model, and the fallback to ChiefLab's key. This goes far beyond a simple 'store key' statement.

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 action, then efficiently covers consequences, providers, security, and removal. It is somewhat dense but all information is relevant and well-structured, with no wasted sentences.

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 set-key tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavior, security, provider list, and how to revoke. It doesn't discuss overwriting behavior or error cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective tool 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 100% and every parameter has a description, but the tool description adds meaningful context for the provider parameter (e.g., 'gemini (image gen)', 'resend (email)') and emphasizes the workspace scoping. This enriches the understanding beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Store a provider API key for THIS workspace.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming chieflab_revoke_provider_key for removal, and the BYOK explanation adds context about the tool's role.

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 explains when to use the tool (to provide your own key for BYOK) and the default behavior without it (ChiefLab uses its own key). It explicitly points to a specific alternative for removal, but doesn't compare with other related tools like connect_provider, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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