openrouter_manage_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that OPENROUTER_MANAGEMENT_KEY is required, but says nothing about the destructive/irreversible nature of 'delete', whether 'create' returns a secret that is shown only once, or any rate limits. For a tool that can delete credentials, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences, correctly front-loaded with the operation set before the auth precondition. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a three-action management tool, but with no output schema the description should say something about what 'list' and 'create' return (e.g., key hashes vs. plaintext secrets). That omission is the main incompleteness.

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 hash, name, limit, and action with conditional requirements. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource with the three supported operations enumerated in parentheses ('list, create, delete'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool covers. It is easily distinguishable from the siblings (chat completion, credits, models), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the auth note, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the schema enum which action to pick for a given intent; the description contributes no routing logic.

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