Create API key

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver one genuinely critical trait: 'The secret is only returned once', which tells the agent to capture the value immediately. It omits other relevant behavior for a mutation tool — required permissions, whether keys expire or are revocable, and that the inline panel/baseUrl/clientKey/applicationKey values are overrides rather than persisted settings.

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, zero filler, with the core action first and the critical once-only secret caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the most important consequence (single-return secret) but not what the response contains, what permissions are needed, or how the optional override parameters interact with saved panels. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already explains panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey and allowed_ips. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the word 'client', and notably leaves the required 'description' parameter undocumented in both places. Baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new client API key'), which cleanly separates it from account_apikey_list and account_apikey_delete in the sibling set. It does not explicitly contrast the 'client' key with the applicationKey override, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 create a key versus listing or deleting one, no prerequisites (e.g. needing panel authentication or an application key first), and no mention of scope or limits. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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