edgegate_create_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the critical one-time return of the plaintext token ("returned EXACTLY ONCE") and the immediate need to copy it. It also states access requirements. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits details like response structure or 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action, the second highlights the critical token handling, and the third lists requirements. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the most important response detail (one-time token) and covers prerequisites. It lacks a full response format description, but the essential context for safe invocation and handling is present. Sibling tools provide additional ecosystem context.

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?

The input schema already documents name and expires_at with meaningful descriptions, giving 67% coverage. The description adds context for workspace_id by noting "for this workspace," but doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema. The prerequisites (Pro tier, owner role) are not parameter-specific. This is a moderate value-add, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Create a new API key for this workspace" (verb: create, resource: API key). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_api_keys and revoke_api_key. The scope is specified as "this workspace," adding precision.

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 for when to use the tool: when a new API key is needed. It includes key prerequisites ("Requires Pro tier or above," "Requires owner role") and operational guidance (copy the token immediately). It does not explicitly name alternatives like list/revoke, but the purpose inherently separates it from siblings.

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