claim_bearer_key

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a 400 error for invalid/used tokens, does not auto-store the key, and is the only place a key is currently minted. These details go beyond the schema and help the agent predict side effects.

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?

Though the description is a few sentences, each sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter clarification, and important caveats. The structure with a separate token explanation improves readability without unnecessary padding.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what is returned, error cases, and the recommended follow-up action. It also provides context about being the only key-minting step, making it complete for an agent to invoke successfully.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly explains the sole parameter (token), including acceptable formats (full URL or the part after 'token=') and that the query string is parsed out. This fully compensates for the minimal schema.

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 redeems a claim-token link's token and returns the actual bearer key. It references the specific source fields (register_agent/rotate_agent_key claim_link) and identifies it as the GET /rotate?token= step, distinguishing it from sibling tool operations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (after register_agent or rotate_agent_key provides a claim_link) and provides a clear 'when-not' by noting the key is not auto-stored, directing users to call set_agent_key afterward for subsequent authentication. This gives actionable guidance and names the alternative tool.

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