login_keys_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe side effects, whether the secret is shown only once, permission requirements, or reversibility. The security preference and 'confirm: Required' hint at caution, but they do not explain the tool's actual behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by the security preference and argument notes. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or redundant restating of 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?

The tool has a nested free-form payload, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, so the description needs to be more self-sufficient. It relies on an external API documentation reference, omits confirm semantics, and does not clarify required payload fields or the implications of creating a login key. This leaves important context unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists example payload fields (name, expires, ips, commands) and says confirm is required, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain what confirm actually confirms, and the schema marks only payload as required, creating a mild conflict.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a login key.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like login_keys_list, login_keys_get, login_keys_update, and login_keys_delete. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'Prefer IP-restricted, command-restricted keys' provides useful security guidance for how to create keys, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like login_keys_update. Usage is implied by the tool name and the 'Create' verb, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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