set_hiro_api_key

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses persistence to ~/.aibtc/config.json and the downstream rate-limit effect. It does not say whether an existing key is overwritten, whether the key is validated before writing, or whether a restart is needed for the new key to take effect — all material for a config-mutating tool.

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 first three sentences are tight and front-loaded with the action and destination. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated promotional content that does not help an agent decide whether to persist a key, and it dilutes focus.

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 single-parameter config tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the file written, the benefit, and where to get a key — enough to invoke correctly. The missing piece is overwrite/idempotency behavior, which an agent may care about when a key is already set.

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% and the apiKey property is documented with a sensitivity warning, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the acquisition URL; it says nothing about accepted key format or validation behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource: 'Save a Hiro API key to ~/.aibtc/config.json', with the destination file named explicitly. The verb alone separates it from the get_hiro_api_key / delete_hiro_api_key siblings, but the description never names those alternatives to confirm the split.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use: authenticated requests get higher rate limits than unauthenticated ones, so an agent knows this is the step to take before high-volume Hiro calls. It also says where to obtain a free key. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. a key is already configured) or pointing at get_hiro_api_key to check.

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