keys_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that keys always start on the free Starter tier (50 clearances/month) and cannot be assigned a tier here, lists the exact return fields, and warns that the raw key is shown only once. It omits permissions/auth requirements and behavior when the email already has a key, so not quite complete.

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?

Four short sentences, each front-loaded and earning its place: verb+resource first, then constraint, then return shape, then the one-time key visibility warning. Zero filler.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies tier constraints, quota, return fields, and the irrecoverable raw-key behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It lacks error/duplicate-email behavior and auth expectations, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that email is required and clarifies that tier is deliberately not a parameter, but it does not add format or constraint detail beyond the schema (e.g., whether the optional name affects key identification).

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 and resource ("Create a new Clearance API key") and names the product scope, which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools that all operate on clearances, tokens, or usage rather than keys. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Implies when to use it (when a new key is needed) and notes email is required, and it usefully excludes choosing a tier here. However, it never states exclusions or alternatives (e.g., whether to reuse an existing key via verify_token instead), so usage is only implied.

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