create_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it reveals the return payload ('Returns test credentials') and flags a one-time visibility constraint ('secret shown only once!') that the agent must act on by capturing the secret immediately. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and idempotency, but the most operationally critical trait is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: the action itself, the return behavior with a critical caveat, and the authorization requirement. The core purpose is front-loaded with zero filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts: what the call returns and the one-time secret warning. It omits the full response structure and error scenarios, but the explicit return-value statement partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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%, with all three parameters (name, orgId, description) already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a new AgeKey application.' This is the only creation tool among siblings like list_applications, get_application, add_redirect_uri, and rotate_credentials, so the agent can immediately distinguish it without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — an agent should call this when a new application needs to be created — and the permission precondition ('Requires Admin role or higher in the organization') provides useful authorization context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to conditions (e.g., 'to modify an existing app, use add_redirect_uri instead').

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