Api keys: create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description then adds the one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the raw key is returned once and can never be retrieved again, which tells the agent the response value must be captured immediately rather than re-fetched.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the highest-value warning. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 100% schema coverage for all five parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient for invocation; the one-time-secret note covers the biggest return-value risk. It could go slightly further by noting that save_as suppresses the printed key, tying the parameter to that behavior.

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 all five parameters (name, save_as, expires_in, permissions, no_expiry_cap) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about defaults, formats, or interactions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (an API key), which unambiguously separates it from api_keys_list and api_keys_revoke. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent still infers the boundary from the tool name rather than the prose.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required role or scope), and no mention of alternatives such as reusing an existing key via api_keys_list. It is a bare imperative with no routing information.

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