regenerate_api_key

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that the old key stops working immediately, that the new secret is returned ONLY in this response, that it is visible in AI conversation context, and that replaced_key_ids preserves request/usage history. These are high-value operational and security facts an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then consequences, then the 2FA steps and access notes. Every sentence carries weight, though the multi-section layout (note + agent usage + access) makes it longer than most definitions; still efficient for a destructive multi-step operation.

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?

For a destructive, 2FA-gated tool with no output schema, the description fills all gaps: return semantics (secret shown once, new id), side effects (old key dies), and the exact 2FA/auth path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully and the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect context ("use the id in this response from now on") rather than new meaning about the input id itself.

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?

States a specific verb (regenerate) and resource (API key), and pins down the exact semantics: new id and secret, same name/environment/scopes/project. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_api_key and revoke_api_key by describing what is preserved and what changes.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite workflow (start_2fa with action_type "api_key_regenerate", wait, poll get_2fa_status until verified) and states what to do with the response id. The access section adds the auth condition (Proof account / PROOF_API_KEY / start_login), so when-to-use and prerequisites are fully covered.

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