issue_api_key

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the key is tied to the existing plan and counts as 1 query against daily quota. However, it does not explicitly state whether old keys are invalidated, which is a minor transparency gap.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, use cases, plan linkage, quota impact. No redundancy, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Covers purpose, use cases, and constraints. However, it omits the return value (the generated key) and does not mention error conditions (e.g., quota exceeded). For a tool with no output schema, describing the output is essential.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description explains the tool's effect without needing parameter details, making it sufficient.

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 'Mint' and resource 'API key', clearly targeting the current authenticated user/tenant. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., geocode, directions) which are unrelated to API key management.

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 explicitly states use cases: 'CLI workflows, key rotation, or MCP clients that hide the configured Bearer'. It also mentions quota consumption. No exclusions needed given sibling tools are unrelated.

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