bootstrap_key

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the rate limit (one key per IP per day), the side effect (the address receives an account-claim link), the session lifetime, and the config keys the result feeds into. It stops short of stating key expiry, failure modes, or error behavior, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering condition, then action, then constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restating of the name, no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description adequately signals the return (the key to be saved into MCP client config), plus the per-IP rate limit and email side effect. It omits error conditions and key longevity, a minor gap for a one-parameter bootstrap 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single email parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mandating that the email come from the user before invocation, which is procedural guidance the schema cannot express.

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 ('Mint a free isMalicious API key from an email address') and frames the exact condition under which it applies ('No API key is configured'). No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation is required, and the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (no key configured), a hard precondition ('Ask the user for their email before calling'), and the scope of the resulting key ('use it for the rest of this session'). Usage is fully specified with no inference required.

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