stalwart_create_api_key

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the token is shown only once in the response. However, with no annotations, it does not mention whether special permissions are required to create a key, or any side effects beyond the one-time token display. This is moderately transparent but has gaps.

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 and well-structured: one sentence stating the core action, a note, and a tidy Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (token shown once) is front-loaded.

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 description covers the essential aspects for a create operation with two parameters. The token-displayed-once caveat is critical and present. An output schema exists, so return details need not be in the description. It lacks mention of prerequisites or permissions, but overall it is adequately complete given the simple tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does so effectively: 'description' is marked required, and 'permissions' has a default of server default. The note clarifying that the object has no 'name' field prevents confusion. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new API key' with the crucial caveat that the token is shown once. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like list_api_keys and delete_api_key.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about the ApiKey object having no 'name' field is more about parameter usage than usage context. No mention of scenarios where creating an API key is appropriate or when to use other tools.

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