set_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 discloses that activation is immediate and requires no restart, and that it should only be invoked with explicit user-provided keys. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting the existing key or whether the operation is reversible, which is important for a state-changing 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and key qualifier. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to call, and a behavioral benefit. It lacks explicit mention of replacing the old key, but the tool name and schema imply the setter semantics. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter, with details on prefix format and where to obtain keys. The tool description adds 'new' and the usage constraint, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Activate' and the resource 'a new Passport Key', which is immediately clear and distinguishes from sibling tools like show_api_key_status that only checks status. It also adds meaningful qualifiers 'instantly, no restart needed' that define the tool's specific effect.

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 gives a clear when-to-use gate: 'Only call when user explicitly provides a key.' This effectively tells the agent not to guess or infer a key. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like show_api_key_status for checking current status, so it lacks the explicit alternative naming seen in top-tier examples.

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