Create a management key

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely important trait beyond that: the secret is returned only once, which tells the agent to capture it immediately. It omits that retries are non-idempotent and that idempotency_key exists for safe retry.

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 the key behavioral caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about the response than just the secret. It does not mention the returned key id/label or the non-idempotent retry behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the scopes parameter (read-only vs read/write) and implies app_id via 'workspace or app key', but says nothing about label or idempotency_key beyond the schema's own note.

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 (Create) and resource (workspace or app key) with the read-only vs read/write distinction, which separates it from rotate_publishable_key and list_api_keys. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus rotate_publishable_key, get_publishable_key, or list_api_keys, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only/read-write phrasing hints at a choice but gives no guidance on selecting it.

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