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, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the key value is returned once and is unrecoverable. It says nothing about permission requirements, whether the key is active immediately, or how it interacts with scope/domain restrictions.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the one-time-visibility warning is placed immediately after the action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully tells the agent the response contains a one-time secret that must be surfaced. However, for a credential-creating mutation with zero annotations, it omits prerequisites such as authorization requirements and any note on the resulting key's state.

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 name, scope, and sending_domain_id are already documented, including the default and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource ("Create a new API key in Emailit"), which cleanly separates it from get-api-key, list-api-keys, update-api-key and delete-api-key in the sibling set. It stops short of describing what the created key inherits, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to create a key versus listing or updating existing ones, and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or account state. The one implicit directive (show the key to the user) is about handling the result, not about when to call the tool.

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