Create org API key

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

The description discloses two critical behavioral traits: the key is returned only once, so it must be stored immediately, and only the owner can perform this action. The annotation openWorldHint is vague, so the description's details add significant value beyond structured data.

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?

The entire description is a single, dense sentence that effectively communicates purpose, permissions, and a key caveat. No filler words.

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?

While the description covers the key behavior and use case, it fails to explain the parameters, and because there is no output schema, it does not describe the response format beyond the key being returned once. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate 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?

The description does not explain the 'name' or 'org_id' parameters at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent must guess the meaning of these parameters from context, which is insufficient.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'mint' to indicate creation of an org API key, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apikey_list and apikey_revoke. The phrase 'returned ONCE' emphasizes the creation aspect, making the purpose 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?

The phrase 'Useful for long-lived machine VPN/usage via X-Api-Key' provides a clear use case and context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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