generate_api_key

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the permission requirement. For a credential-minting mutation it says nothing about whether an existing key is invalidated, whether the key is shown once, or whether the operation is reversible — all critical behavioral facts an agent needs.

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?

It is short and the permission requirement sits near the top, but the leading line duplicates the tool name and the trailing "Tags: Agents" plus raw HTTP verb are auto-generated metadata rather than agent-facing guidance. Roughly half the text earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain what is returned (presumably the new key) and how it relates to existing keys, and it does neither. For a security-sensitive single-parameter mutation tool this leaves an important gap despite the simple schema.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as "(path parameter)"; the route template clarifies that `id` is the agent identifier, which is a modest addition. Beyond that the description adds no format or constraint detail the schema doesn't already carry, so the 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?

The heading merely restates the tool name; the real purpose signal comes from the raw route "POST /api/v1/agents/{id}/api-key", which shows a key is minted for a specific agent. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling revoke_api_key or explains what kind of key is produced, so the agent must infer the resource relationship.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite "Requires the `users:manage` permission", which is genuinely useful for deciding whether a call can succeed. There is no statement of when to use this versus revoke_api_key, no note on whether existing keys are replaced, and no mention of error behavior when permission is missing.

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