step_configure_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It appropriately reveals that the tool persists a key locally and includes a privacy-relevant instruction not to echo the key. It could further mention whether an existing key is overwritten, but the core behavior and safety guardrail are clearly disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage condition and safety instruction follow directly. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 simple single-parameter configuration tool, the description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly: the exact trigger condition, the required input, and the key handling constraint are all present. No output schema or complex nested parameters create additional explanatory burden.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well documented as the explicitly provided Step Plan API Key. The description does not add significant new semantic meaning about the parameter itself, but it reinforces that the key must come from an explicit user request. This meets the baseline for a fully schema-covered parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Save'), a concrete resource ('Step Plan API Key'), and the target context ('for this local MCP server'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which handle status, image generation, and text-to-speech rather than configuration.

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 explicit invocation criteria: use only when the user explicitly asks to configure or update Step Plan and provides a key. It also adds a behavioral restriction ('Do not echo the full key back to the user'), giving clear operational guidance.

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