avito_set_key

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the key enters the chat transcript, requires an explicit confirmation flag, is saved locally with chmod 600, and is never echoed back. It also notes on success the key is validated and the shop name reported. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but purposeful: it front-loads the privacy warning, gives a safety alternative, then lists arguments and success behavior. The unresolved `{fields}` placeholder is a content defect, but overall structure is clean and earned.

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?

It covers default behavior, confirmation requirement, privacy, local file permissions, validation, and success reporting. However, it does not enumerate the required credential fields a caller must provide, and it omits any failure-mode or permission guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the credentials gap makes the tool not fully self-contained.

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?

Cabinet and i_understand_key_goes_to_chat are well explained, including default behavior and the true requirement. However, credentials is described only as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})', which is an unresolved template rather than concrete field names. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this gap leaves the most important parameter underspecified.

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 'Change / rotate the API key from chat', which names a specific verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like avito_add_cabinet by targeting key rotation rather than cabinet management.

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?

It explicitly says 'The safe, terminal-free alternative is the installer, where the key never enters chat' and recommends rotating in the seller cabinet if the key was exposed. It also explains the default cabinet behavior with the example 'my key expired', so an agent knows when and how to call this tool.

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