memory_api_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool that creates/revokes API keys, details about security or restrictions are missing.

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 concise with a brief opening sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words and presents information efficiently, though the formatting could be slightly improved for readability.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description should cover return values, error conditions, or special behaviors. It only details parameters. For a tool managing API keys, information about successful creation/revocation or failure scenarios is absent, leaving gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of each parameter and associates them with specific actions (e.g., api_key for revoke only). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and defaults, though it lacks format or constraint details.

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 'Manage API keys' and lists the three actions (create, revoke, list), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_backup or memory_search which handle different memory 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?

The description specifies which parameters apply to which action (user_id and label for create only, api_key for revoke only) and lists the allowed action values. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives but provides clear action-specific guidelines.

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