create_api_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds critical behavioral context: the key value is shown only once in the response and must be saved. This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotations disclosure that matters for a create operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the one-time-display warning is placed at the end where it's memorable. No wasted words.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral warning (key shown once) and the scope distinction. It doesn't mention response format, but the absence of an output schema and the one-time warning partially compensate. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the semantic distinction that server_id omitted means account-wide key, and that login_notify_method should be 'none' for per-server keys. This adds value beyond the schema, but the schema already carries most of the parameter meaning, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Создать') and resource ('новый API-ключ'), and clarifies the two scopes: account-wide or per-server. It also includes the endpoint path (api_keys/add), which disambiguates it from sibling tools like list_server_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 implies when to use it: when creating a new API key, and it distinguishes account-level vs server-level keys via server_id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of creation vs listing/updating/deleting is clear from the sibling names and the description's scope statement.

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