create_contentpilot_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that plaintext is returned only once and that cms:manage scope is required. It omits whether rotation invalidates the previous key, which is the main behavioral gap for a key-rotation tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two operational facts that matter most. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the security-relevant facts (one-time plaintext, permission scope) for a simple one-parameter tool. Only the effect of rotation on existing keys is left unaddressed.

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 0% for the single project_id parameter, but the description's 'project-scoped' wording clarifies its meaning. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, so the description adds modest value beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create/rotate a project-scoped Pull API key') with clear scope. The action naturally separates it from its siblings get_contentpilot_key_status and revoke_contentpilot_key without needing to name them.

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 'create/rotate' phrasing implies the situations in which it is used, so usage is implied rather than stated. It never explicitly contrasts with revoke_contentpilot_key or get_contentpilot_key_status, nor states when rotation is warranted over initial creation.

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