wb_set_key

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: the key enters the chat transcript, requires an explicit confirmation flag, is stored locally with chmod 600, never echoed back, and is validated against the marketplace. These details add critical context not present in the annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 every sentence earns its place: it leads with the purpose, immediately flags the security warning, lists parameters clearly, and concludes with post-success behavior. No superfluous details; the structure aids quick comprehension.

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?

The tool is security-sensitive and complex, yet the description covers the full lifecycle: purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, safety precautions, default behavior, and success outcomes. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds the shop name reporting detail, making it complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: credentials (required fields in a dict), cabinet (default behavior and naming fallback), and i_understand_key_goes_to_chat (must be true). This provides complete meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Change / rotate') and a clear resource ('the API key'), with an explicit use case ('old one expired or leaked'). It distinguishes from sibling set_key tools by specifying the platform (wb) and the chat context, making it unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance (key expired/leaked) and contrasts with the safe installer alternative. It also provides best-practice guidance (use a scoped key, rotate in seller cabinet) and explains the default cabinet selection logic, so an agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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