argocd_set_api_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses in-memory session scope and env var precedence, which is useful. But it does not detail behavior like overwriting existing keys, error conditions, or if the tool requires prior context.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action, then usage notes. Efficient and structured.

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?

For a simple setter with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, source of token, and persistence behavior. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on invalid key or how to verify it's set.

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 description coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema (e.g., apiKey is a Bearer token, profile is environment). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'set' and resource 'Argo CD API key (Bearer token) in memory for the current MCP session'. It adds context about token sources, making the purpose specific. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like argocd_login, but the purpose 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (token from UI or generate-token) and notes that env vars take precedence on restart. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative authentication methods among siblings, missing some guidance.

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