Create an API key

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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond the annotations: the secret is returned once and cannot be retrieved again, it should not be logged, the new key cannot escalate beyond the calling key's scopes, and billing:write authorizes spending money. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking an API key creation 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 description is compact and front-loaded with the most important operational warning: the secret is returned once and cannot be retrieved again. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no padding or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 mutative key-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential invocation requirements: required caller scope, secure handling of the returned secret, scope-escalation limits, and the high-risk billing:write scope. An agent has enough information to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 adds meaningful parameter-related guidance by explaining scope-escalation prevention and the financial implication of billing:write, going beyond the schema's enum list and field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Mint a new scoped key,' a specific verb and resource that clearly indicates creation of an API key. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as rotate_api_key, revoke_api_key, and list_api_keys without any ambiguity.

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 states the required caller scope (api_keys:write) and gives concrete guidance on when this tool is appropriate: grant only needed scopes and avoid creating keys with billing:write unless spending is intended. It does not explicitly compare against rotate or revoke alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when creation is the right operation.

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