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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations, especially that the `raw_key` is shown only once and cannot be retrieved again. It also discloses the required scope, rate-limit context, and that the tool maps to a specific HTTP endpoint, which helps the agent anticipate side effects and constraints.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose and critical one-time-key warning. Minor redundancy exists between the title 'Create an API key' and the first sentence, but the additional endpoint and scope details earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the response fields and explaining the unrecoverable raw key. It also covers scope, endpoint mapping, and operational constraints, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without inventing details.

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 the input schema already fully documents both `name` and `key_type`, including the enum values. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline expectation when the schema carries the full burden.

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 specific action ('Creates a new API key') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling create tools like createApp and createTemplate. It also anchors the tool to a concrete OpenAPI operationId and endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 usage context is implied by the action itself and reinforced by the scope (`org:manage`) and endpoint mapping. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over related alternatives like listApiKeys, revokeApiKey, or deleteApiKey, and there are no exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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