create_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one valuable fact: 'The token is returned ONCE,' warning that the key cannot be retrieved later. However, it does not explain the security consequences of full_access versus sending_access, whether the key is immediately active, or any permission prerequisites.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the critical one-time-token caveat. The permission sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it does not add significant clutter.

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 simple creation tool the description covers the essential one-time-token behavior, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves gaps: it does not describe the response shape, the semantics of the two permission levels, or any post-creation behavior. An agent can call it correctly but may not understand which permission to choose.

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 mostly repeats information already in the schema: permission's enum values are already visible, and name and domain_id already have descriptions. It adds no meaning about what full_access versus sending_access actually allows, nor does it clarify how domain_id interacts with permission beyond the schema's existing note.

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 action and resource: 'Create an API key (POST /api-keys).' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_api_keys and delete_api_key, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 verb 'Create' implies when to use the tool, but the description gives no explicit guidance on choosing it over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It also does not clarify whether permission is optional or what the default behavior is, leaving some usage nuance implicit.

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