Reissue API key

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

The description explicitly warns that prior account-scoped nv_ keys are revoked, which aligns with destructiveHint=true and goes beyond what the annotation states. It also discloses the side effect that email verification may be performed. This is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

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 description is two concise sentences with the purpose stated first and the critical revocation warning placed prominently. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 destructive, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, authentication requirement, destructive side effect, and additional verification behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so both email and code are already documented. The description confirms that code is an email OTP and email is the account owner, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Mint') with a resource ('new account nv_ key') and identifies the required credential source ('from email OTP'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling auth-related tools like verify_email, resend_verification, and create_account_session.

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 description provides clear context: no Bearer key is required, and the operation depends on an email OTP. The schema further references resend_verification as the OTP source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the trigger conditions are evident.

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