hh_set_key

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description is consistent with that. It adds substantial context the annotations cannot convey: the key is written into the chat transcript, it is validated against the marketplace on success, the shop name is reported, and the file is saved locally with chmod 600 and never echoed back.

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 core action and a prominent warning, then structured into Args and success sections; nearly every sentence earns its place. The security aside about scoped keys and the seller cabinet is useful but slightly beyond what is needed to invoke the tool.

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 write tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the safety model (chat-exposure warning, confirmation flag), the side effects (local save, permissions), and the success signal (validation + reported shop name). The only gap, credentials field detail, is a schema/templating defect rather than a missing concept.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does well for two of three params: cabinet defaulting to the active cabinet (with the shop-name/'main' fallback) and the mandatory boolean flag are both explained. However, the required credentials param is described only as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})' — an unsubstituted template placeholder that leaves the most important parameter undocumented.

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 ('Change / rotate the API key') and explicitly scopes it to a chat-driven rotation scenario. It also names the alternative path (the installer) and the sibling tools that handle non-key cabinet work, so an agent can distinguish it from hh_add_cabinet/hh_use_cabinet at a glance.

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 the triggering conditions ('the old one expired or leaked'), a required precondition (i_understand_key_goes_to_chat=true), and a named alternative (the installer, where the key never enters chat) plus remediation advice for exposed keys. Nothing is left to inference.

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