set_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: key is verified before writing, stored in plain text at a specific path, sent only to Agnes, and the run_check will generate and read back an image. It also notes that typos fail early, providing clear behavioral expectations.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value: security, verification, environment precedence, and verbatim reporting instruction. It is well-organized with an Args section, but could be tightened slightly by merging the 'whole install' sentence.

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?

Given this is a setup tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to call it, side effects, return handling, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema is not needed because the description tells the agent to relay the message verbatim.

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 schema provides no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining the key format ('sk-'), the free source, and the time cost (20-60s) and purpose of run_check, going far beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Set up this server with the user's API key.' It distinctively describes the installation scope and is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like generate_image and describe_image, which are runtime operations.

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?

Explicit usage instruction: 'Call this as soon as the user provides a key.' It also tells when to skip the run_check ('Only skip it if the user is in a hurry'), and clarifies precedence with 'AGNES_API_KEY in the environment still wins if set.'

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