create_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that the raw key is shown only once and not stored, advising immediate saving. This is highly valuable. It does not mention other side effects like idempotency.

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 concise (10 lines) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value—roles definitions, security warning, and examples. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description could mention the return value explicitly. It infers the key is returned through the warning. Otherwise, it covers the essential context for a mutation tool with 5 parameters.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all 5 parameters: name (required), role (default viewer), email, scope_team, scope_provider. It also defines the role enumeration and scoping semantics via examples.

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 verb 'create', the resource 'API key', and specifies it's for a team member. It also distinguishes from siblings like revoke_api_key and list_api_keys by mentioning admin role requirement.

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 clear context: requires admin role in shared mode, defines roles and scoping options, and gives examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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