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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful context that an API key is issued and that a specific scope is required. However, for a credential-issuing tool it omits important behavioral details, such as whether the key is shown only once, and does not reconcile the presence of an idempotency_key parameter with the non-idempotent annotation.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the primary action is front-loaded before the prerequisite scope condition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description implies an API key is returned but does not specify the response shape, whether the key is retrievable later, or the effect of omitted scopes. The scope prerequisite is useful, but key operational details remain underspecified.

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 67%, with meaningful documentation for scopes and idempotency_key already present. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not explain defaults, scope implications, or naming constraints for the required name field.

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 effect: authorize another agent and issue its API key. It clearly distinguishes creation from siblings like revoke_agent and list_agents implicitly, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 prerequisite scope 'agents:manage' is stated, giving a clear condition for use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_agents or revoke_agent, nor any when-not-to-use condition.

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