inference_reveal_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses write-only storage, that a wallet signature is required to read the key back, that the wallet must be unlocked, and that rotation replaces the credential. It stops short of stating whether rotation is reversible, whether reveal is audited, or what happens if the provider has no key yet.

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 core is two tight, front-loaded clauses with the credential definition and the security caveat first. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is unrelated promotional content that does not help an agent decide to invoke this tool and dilutes an otherwise clean definition.

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 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it returns (the key), the auth prerequisite, and the mutate-vs-read switch, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves the multi-gateway/allowUnsafeGateway risk path explained only by the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage there.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates rotate semantics that the schema already documents in detail and says nothing about the gateway or allowUnsafeGateway parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

Specific verb pair (reveal/rotate) plus a precisely defined resource, with an explicit negative definition ('NOT an ownership token; ownership is your wallet') that prevents confusion with wallet/token tools. An agent can distinguish this from inference_update_provider and the generic credentials_* family without opening a schema.

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?

States the condition for the risky path ('Pass rotate=true to issue a new one') and the prerequisite ('Requires an unlocked wallet'), and points at inference_list_providers implicitly via providerId. It never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer inference_update_provider or credentials_get instead, so no explicit exclusions.

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