key_protect_create_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful security context ('stored in FIPS 140-2 Level 3 HSM') and implies a persistent write operation, but it does not disclose permissions, idempotency, return behavior, or rate limits. This is a moderate gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the resource, the service, and the security storage context.

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?

The description is quite brief for a create operation with no output schema and no annotations. It covers the fundamental purpose and adds security context, but it omits expected return values, next steps, or any caveats. Schema covers parameters well, but the overall description could be more complete for a tool that creates a persistent resource.

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 input schema fully describes all four parameters including defaults and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create'), the resource ('encryption key'), and the service ('IBM Key Protect'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like key_protect_list_keys, key_protect_wrap_key, and key_protect_delete_key.

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 use when a new encryption key is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, though the create action is self-evident among siblings.

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