regenerate_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral weight and does so thoroughly: old key stops working immediately, new secret is returned only once, secret is visible in AI conversation context, requires 2FA, and requires a Proof account/auth setup.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core effect is front-loaded, followed by critical security/visibility implications, then precise agent-facing 2FA steps, then access requirements. The numbered workflow makes the required sequence easy to follow.

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 description is complete for a sensitive one-parameter operation: it explains the outcome, the irreversible consequence, the 2FA prerequisite, the execution order, and the access/auth condition. No output schema exists, but the key return information is explicitly disclosed.

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%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented adequately. The description adds slight context by noting the ID remains the same after regeneration, but no substantial parameter detail is needed beyond the schema.

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 ('Regenerate') with a clear resource ('API key') and distinguishes the action from create/revoke by explaining it keeps the same ID and settings while issuing a new secret. It also states the key consequence ('old key stops working immediately'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly states the precondition (2FA) and provides an ordered workflow for when to call this tool versus the 2FA helper tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_api_key or revoke_api_key, but the regenerate semantics imply the appropriate context.

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