regenerate_api_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Regenerate' without explaining consequences such as old keys being invalidated, potential downtime, permission requirements, or any irreversible effects. This is a destructive operation that lacks critical behavioral context.

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 a single, focused sentence that clearly conveys the action, targets, and scope without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of a parameterless operation, the description is largely complete for identifying what the tool does. However, it omits behavioral consequences (e.g., old keys become invalid) which an agent should know before invoking a destructive action. Minor gap, but not severe.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter information is required.

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 clearly states the action (regenerate), the resource (public and secret API keys), and the scope (for the merchant account). It specifically identifies key formats (pk_live_... and sk_live_...), making it unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_webhook_secret or get_profile.

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 implies usage context by naming the purpose (merchant account key regeneration), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It is implied that this is for rotating credentials, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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