create_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the secret is returned only once, will be visible in AI conversation context, requires 2FA session elevation, and that a 403 means the 2FA session expired. It also discloses the Proof account access requirement. This is thorough and highly transparent.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: one-time secret warning, conversation visibility warning, profile binding effect, the 2FA sequence, the expiry recovery path, and access setup. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and uses clear numbered steps and labeled sections.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the key security behavior of the response, the prerequisite 2FA flow, failure handling, and access requirements. The only thing not detailed is the full response shape, but the critical 'secret returned only once' fact is prominently conveyed, which is what an agent most needs to know.

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 the schema already documents name, scopes, profile_id, and environment. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for profile_id by explaining that outbound messages will be branded as that project, which goes beyond the schema's binding/immutability note. This lifts it above the baseline.

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 clear action and resource: 'Create a new API key.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_api_keys, revoke_api_key, and regenerate_api_key, and it emphasizes the unique one-time secret return. No ambiguity about what this 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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance including a mandatory 2FA prerequisite flow with numbered steps, references to start_2fa and get_2fa_status, and instructions for handling a 403 expiry. It also explains the access requirements for Proof accounts and the alternative start_login path. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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