autobrr_api_keys

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 explicitly labels create as WRITE and delete as DESTRUCTIVE, and notes that the token appears only once, which is critical state-changing information. It doesn't mention read-only nature of list, but that's implied.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear bullet list of operations. Each bullet has a function signature and safety annotation where relevant, with no redundant or verbose text. It 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?

Given the dispatcher pattern and three operations, the description covers operation selection, side effects, and token visibility. However, the create_api_key operation's body parameter is left entirely undocumented, which is a significant gap for invoking the tool correctly. Output schema exists, so return format is not needed.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does list the parameters for each operation (body, apikey) in the function signatures, but lacks details on what the body should contain or what format apikey uses. The description adds some meaning beyond the raw enum, but not enough for full clarity.

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 it handles 'autobrr api keys operations' and enumerates the three specific operations: create, delete, and list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like autobrr_filters or autobrr_notifications, making the tool's purpose obvious.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: whenever performing API key operations. It also explains the dispatcher pattern (pass operation + arguments) and lists each operation with its parameters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the narrowing to API keys implies exclusions.

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