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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses key behaviors: it reacts to live permission results, auto-refuses certain key patterns, and never echoes secret values. This provides useful transparency about side effects and handling of sensitive data.

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 somewhat verbose and repetitive, repeating warnings about test-only keys and not sending real secrets multiple times. The core message is clear, but it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, restrictions, and behavioral nuances (e.g., refusing live keys, not echoing secrets). It does not explicitly mention success criteria or error scenarios, but given the lack of an output schema, the absence is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The description enriches the schema for 'config' by providing an example and noting that it is key→value, and for 'service_id' by giving examples like 'stripe_checkout' and 'email'. It also clarifies the restriction on live keys. However, 'project_uuid' remains undescribed in both schema and description, which prevents a perfect score.

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 function: configuring service keys for a project to enable integration at deploy. It provides concrete examples (SendGrid, Stripe) and is specific about the verb ('configure') and resource ('service keys'), making it easy to distinguish from other build tools.

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 gives explicit usage rules: only test/sandbox keys should be provided, live keys are auto-refused, and production secrets should be handled via the admin panel. It also warns against putting real secrets through the tool. While it does not compare to sibling tools directly, the guidance on when to use and what to avoid is strong.

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