swiss_set_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the persistence location (~/.swiss-apis-mcp/keys), immediate-effect behavior, and the optional nature of the key. It doesn't mention whether setting a key overwrites existing values or how to delete/clear a key, but the provided details cover the most important behavioral traits for a credential-storage 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, storage, effect, and user-interaction guidance. Efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words, though the behavioral detail about storage location could arguably be trimmed. Well-structured for an agent to quickly extract purpose and safety guidance.

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 is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description covers the essentials well: purpose, storage location, immediate effect, and the instruction to ask the user first. The main gap is the lack of guidance on overwriting or managing multiple keys, but given the low complexity of the tool, the description is adequate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context that the key enables 'Swiss API tools that require it', tying parameters to their operational effect. However, the enum values (key names) are not individually explained beyond their names, and the description doesn't add much per-parameter semantic value beyond what the schema's field descriptions already provide.

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 action 'Store an optional API key', the specific resource (Swiss API tools that require it), and the exact storage location. It clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are data-retrieval tools, by being the only configuration/setup tool in the set.

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 explicitly instructs 'Ask the user for the value before calling this tool', which is critical safety guidance for an API-key tool. It also clarifies the timing (takes effect immediately, no server restart needed) and implies this is a prerequisite step for other Swiss tools that need the key. The description frames it as a setup action, distinguishing it from the many data query siblings.

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