create_agent_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the plaintext key is returned only once, instructs to store it securely and not echo into chat, and explains the budget option is fail-closed. These are critical security traits not discoverable from the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains only high-value information. No fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's sensitivity (creating a credential), the description covers essential aspects: the key prefix, one-time retrieval, security handling, optional budget, and developer-key requirement. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the main output (the plaintext key) and its security implications, making it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 already has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four fields. The description adds value by explaining that the budget is a 'rolling spend budget (fail-closed)', which clarifies the operational consequence of combining budget_raw and window_seconds beyond what the schema states.

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 'Mint a new agent API key (floe_...)' for an agent, identifying the resource and action. It also differentiates from siblings like rotate_agent_key and revoke_agent_key by focusing on creating a new credential for runtime tools and x402_pay.

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 provides clear context: this is for creating a new key and requires a developer key (floe_live_...). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over sibling key-management tools.

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