hh_set_key

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the key enters the chat transcript, requires a confirmation flag, is validated against the marketplace, is saved locally with chmod 600, and is never echoed back. This is rich behavioral context that materially informs an agent about side effects and security implications.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: the warning, alternative guidance, argument semantics, and success behavior. The security caveat is front-loaded, and the Args section is cleanly separated, though the placeholder '{fields}' adds a small blemish.

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?

Covering security caveats, defaults, validation, local persistence, and a terminal-free alternative, this description leaves little for an agent to infer. The presence of an output schema covers return details, and the description still adds expected success behavior (shop name reported).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'cabinet' defaults and the safety flag, but the sole required parameter 'credentials' is only described as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})' — a placeholder that leaves the actual required fields unresolved.

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 specific action, 'Change / rotate the API key from chat,' which clearly identifies the resource and mode of operation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with the installer alternative and naming the context (expired/leaked 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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('e.g. the old one expired or leaked') and points to the safer alternative (the installer) where the key never enters chat. It also advises rotating scoped keys in the seller cabinet if exposed, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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