aureon_create_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the secret is returned only once and must be stored immediately. However, it says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, whether key creation can be undone, or rate limits on key issuance.

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?

One sentence with the action front-loaded and the critical caveat in a tight parenthetical. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential gotcha (one-time secret) and the schema covers the parameter, so an agent can invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around auth requirements and what the response contains besides the secret.

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% for the single `name` parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ("Create an SDK API key") that an agent can distinguish from sibling key-management tools like aureon_list_api_keys, aureon_revoke_api_key, and aureon_toggle_api_key. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for provisioning credentials. The creation intent is implied by the verb but nothing routes the agent between this and the other api_key tools.

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