onboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that the key is tested, encrypted, never leaves the server, and persisted for later runs. Gaps remain on what happens if the test fails, whether an existing key for the same tool is overwritten, and whether anything is returned.

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, front-loaded with the action and value proposition, with the prerequisite as a closing directive. No filler; the parenthetical security clause 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?

For a credential-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers security and persistence but omits failure behavior, idempotency/overwrite semantics, and what the caller should expect on success. Adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to api_key (must be supplied by the user, tested and encrypted) and to tool_id implicitly via 'for one tool', but the label parameter is never mentioned, and no format examples for tool_id are given.

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 concrete verb and resource: save the user's API key for one tool, with the scoping detail that it is per-tool. It never contrasts itself with adjacent siblings such as login, use_token, or setup, so an agent must infer which credential path applies.

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 prerequisite 'Get the key from the user first' is useful, and 'reused on every later run' implies this is a one-time setup step. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over login/use_token/setup, nor what to do if a key already exists.

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