create_api_key

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

Annotations already establish this as a non-read-only operation, and the description adds a valuable behavioral warning: the key value is shown only once in the response and must be saved. This goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the single most important operational warning. No redundant 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?

For a create operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential one-time-display behavior, and the schema documents all required and optional fields. A small gap remains: it does not mention when not to use alternatives, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including server_id semantics and the login_notify_method constraint. The description adds little beyond the account-or-server distinction, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 action ('Создать новый API-ключ') and the resource with scope ('для аккаунта или конкретного сервера'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_api_keys, get_api_key, update_api_key, 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?

The description gives clear context: create a new API key for an account, or for a server when server_id is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the creation intent is unambiguous and the sibling CRUD tools are obvious by contrast.

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