Create API key

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) partially cover the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior: 'The raw token is returned once in the response and cannot be retrieved again; store it securely.' This is important operational context beyond the annotation declarations. No contradiction with annotations since readOnlyHint=false aligns with a create/mutation operation.

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 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the critical security note. No redundant phrasing or filler. Slightly more could be said about idempotency or scope selection, but the current length is well-balanced.

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 create tool with 5 params (80% schema-covered), no output schema, and readOnlyHint=false, the description covers the key behavioral risk (one-time token return). It doesn't detail the response shape, but for a creation tool without an output schema this is acceptable. Could note that scopes map to access tiers, but the schema enum already covers that.

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 80%, so most parameters (name, scope, project_id, expires_in_days) carry inline documentation. The description adds the critical warning that the token is one-time-returnable, but doesn't address idempotency_key (which has no schema description) or add semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no major compensation needed.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a new API key for the authenticated project.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project_api_key, create_personal_token, and revoke_api_key by clarifying it creates keys for 'the authenticated project,' though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_api_keys or the project-scoped variants.

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 implies usage via 'for the authenticated project' but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over create_project_api_key or create_personal_token, nor explain the distinction between API keys and personal tokens. Given the large sibling set with overlapping create-key tools, this is a notable gap — no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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