create_api_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it's a 'mutation,' implying a write operation, but discloses no details about required permissions, side effects, return values, or error behavior. The example variables are not behavioral explanations, so the transparency is essentially nil.

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 very short but structurally fragmented: 'API Keys · mutation createApiKey' is a label rather than a coherent sentence, and 'Variables: input' is redundant with the schema. The example is useful but could be integrated more naturally. It earns a mid score because it is concise but not well-organized.

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 tool has a nested input object and no output schema, yet the description does not explain required fields, the return value, or what happens upon creation. The example helps but leaves significant gaps. For a mutation of this complexity, the description is incomplete and would likely leave an agent under-informed.

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's 'input' parameter is merely described as 'GraphQL: CreateApiKeyInput!' with no internal fields exposed. The description's example reveals that the input object accepts 'expiryTime' and 'user,' adding crucial shape information beyond the schema. Although schema coverage is 100%, the input description is a type reference, so the example meaningfully compensates.

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 identifies the operation as 'mutation createApiKey' within 'API Keys,' making it clear this creates an API key. While it doesn't use a full sentence, the verb 'create' and resource 'API key' are explicit, and the example variables reinforce the purpose. The name itself distinguishes it from sibling list/delete operations.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like api_keys (list) or delete_api_key_by_id. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when this mutation is appropriate. The example variables are the only hint, but they don't address tool selection.

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