Create an ingest key (201); a server key is shown in full only now

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the 201 response, the one-time full disclosure of a server key, the absence of a server-side dry run, and the confirm gate. The main omission is what the preview response contains and whether the key can be retrieved later.

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?

Two dense sentences with the operation and endpoint front-loaded and the write-safety caveat immediately after. Minor redundancy between the title and the first clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return signal (201, key shown in full only now) and the dry-run caveat. It falls short on the nested body semantics (kind, clientId) that an agent needs to construct a correct request.

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 67% and the description only echoes the confirm gate that the schema already documents. It never explains the 'kind' enum (public vs server) or the role of clientId, which are the semantically loaded parts of the nested body object.

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 and resource ('Create an ingest key') plus the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/tracking/ingest-keys), which cleanly separates it from siblings like tracking_listIngestKeys and tracking_revokeIngestKey. The parenthetical about the server key being shown in full only once adds scope detail rather than restating the name.

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 'WRITE: not executed unless confirm: true' clause gives a concrete precondition for invocation, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over adjacent tools such as apiKeys_create or tracking_listIngestKeys, so the agent must infer the selection context.

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