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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: live-marked keys are auto-refused, most providers lack a test-vs-live signal, the tool reacts to the live permission result, and secret values are never echoed. These are materially important behaviors for a destructive configuration tool and are not merely restatements of the annotations.

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 and the most important safety constraint. It is somewhat repetitive about test/sandbox keys, but the repetition is purposeful for a high-risk secret-handling tool and does not obscure the main guidance.

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, non-idempotent configuration tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it configures, which keys are allowed, what happens with live keys, the permission behavior, and the fact that secrets are not echoed. An agent has enough information to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents config as test/sandbox key→value with examples, service_id as a catalog id, and project_uuid as coming from build_list_projects or build_create_project. The description reinforces the test-only constraint but does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: configuring a service's keys for a project so an integration works at deploy, with concrete examples like SendGrid and Stripe TEST keys. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby sibling tools such as build_go_live or connector_test_config.

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?

It gives explicit usage boundaries: use test/sandbox keys ONLY, never send real secrets through this tool/chat, and use the admin panel for production secrets. It also explains that a deep link is returned for production secrets, so the agent knows when to stop and redirect rather than trying to configure live credentials here.

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