key_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and requirements. It only says 'Generate', but does not mention authorization needs, that a new key is created with potential spend implications, or what the response (e.g., the key value) looks like. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the endpoint path. It is concise without waste, but it omits any broader context; still, it is appropriately brief for a simple creation tool.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description. For a key generation tool, an agent needs to know what the response contains (the key), whether admin permissions are required, and how it relates to key_info. This minimal description does not satisfy those needs, making it incomplete for the given complexity.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'a new LiteLLM Proxy API key', precisely defining the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like key_info (which queries existing keys) and model listing tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether key_info should be used to review existing keys or if specific prerequisites exist. It is a bare statement of purpose with no context for selection.

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