create_geomi_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that API keys are 'secret keys' requiring security, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what permissions are needed to create keys, whether there are rate limits on creation, what the response contains (e.g., the actual key value), or whether creation is idempotent. For a security-sensitive creation tool, this is inadequate.

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 reasonably concise at three sentences, but the first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about Geomi being 'the essential toolkit for Aptos developers' is marketing fluff that doesn't aid tool selection. The third sentence partially repeats the first. Some trimming would improve focus without losing essential 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., where the key is stored, how to retrieve it), security implications, or error conditions. For a tool that creates sensitive credentials, more contextual guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 80%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions API keys are for 'Api resource application to interact with the Aptos blockchain,' which loosely relates to the application_id parameter. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., organization_id, project_id, application_id hierarchy) or provide context for complex nested parameters like frontend_args.

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 the tool creates a new API key for a Geomi Organization, specifying it's for interacting with the Aptos blockchain. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_geomi_api_resource_application' by focusing on key creation rather than application creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_geomi_api_key' in terms of create vs. modify operations.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions it's for creating API keys for applications to interact with Aptos blockchain, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing organization, project, and application), nor does it contrast with alternatives like 'update_geomi_api_key' for modifying existing keys or 'delete_geomi_api_key' for removal.

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