komga_users_api_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavior such as which operations require ADMIN, which affect the current user vs other users, and which create or revoke credentials. It does not explain error behavior or reversibility, but state-changing verbs plus permission notes cover the main operational traits.

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?

A brief dispatcher instruction is followed by a well-organized bullet list with one-line explanations for each operation. Every line conveys a parameter signature, a concise behavioral description, and permission context, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 12 operations, a mostly untyped arguments schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to do heavy lifting. It covers operation names, parameters, and admin requirements, but it falls short of fully specifying payload structures for create_user, update_user, and create_api_key.

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?

The description adds significant value over the free-form arguments schema by listing per-operation parameter signatures and pagination defaults. However, opaque parameters such as user, request, and patch lack shape or required-field documentation, so agents still must infer important parts of the argument payload.

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 lists concrete operations such as change_my_password, create_user, delete_user, list_users, and whoami, making the dispatcher's purpose unmistakable. The users/auth/API-key scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling Komga tools like komga_series, komga_libraries, and komga_books.

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 scope is obviously Komga user, API-key, and authentication activity management, and every operation is documented. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use statements or sibling alternatives, but the domain context is strong enough to route relevant requests here.

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