Setup API Key

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the key is returned only once and should be saved securely, which are critical implementation details not captured in structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys essential information in just two sentences. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains the action and prerequisites, while the second provides critical behavioral guidance about key security.

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 tool that creates credentials with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, and key behavioral aspects (one-time return, security). However, it could mention what happens on failure (e.g., invalid credentials) or the format of the returned key, which would enhance completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (email, password, keyName). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of keyName or authentication requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Authenticates... and creates an API key') and resource ('your StacksFinder account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_api_keys or revoke_api_key. It goes beyond just restating the name/title by explaining the authentication and key creation process.

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 this tool ('Requires Pro or Team tier'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already have an API key) or name specific alternatives like list_api_keys for checking existing keys.

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