reload_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully covers the key behavioral aspects: no restart required, sessions invalidated for changed/removed keys, unchanged keys keep cached sessions, and returns a diff. This is comprehensive and beyond typical.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides meaningful information: usage scenario, behavioral consequences, and return value. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns (a diff). It covers the tool's purpose, trigger condition, effect on sessions, and return value, making it complete for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'path' parameter including its defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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's function: reloading the administrationId → apiKey map from a JSON keys file without restarting the MCP server. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are all read/process 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 it: after a new key has been generated externally (e.g., via create_api_key flow) to make it immediately usable for SOAP calls. This provides clear contextual guidance, and the effects (session invalidation) are clearly explained.

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