ms_set_key

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a critical safety behavior: the key enters the chat transcript and requires an explicit acknowledgment flag. It also states the key is validated against the marketplace, stored locally with chmod 600 permissions, and never echoed back. No annotation contradiction is present.

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: the warning, the alternative, the parameter semantics, and the success behavior. The Args section is clearly organized and the safety warning is front-loaded.

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 description is strong on purpose, safety, and postconditions, and there is an output schema available. However, the unexplained '{fields}' placeholder for the sole required parameter leaves a material gap: an agent cannot reliably construct the credentials dict without additional information.

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 needed to explain the parameters itself. It does clarify cabinet defaulting and the i_understand_key_goes_to_chat requirement, but the required credentials parameter is described only as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})' — an unresolved placeholder that gives the agent no concrete fields or shape to use.

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 and resource: 'Change / rotate the API key from chat', with concrete trigger examples ('expired or leaked'). It also distinguishes itself from the installer-based alternative, making it easy to tell this tool apart from the surrounding cabinet/auth tools.

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 when to use the chat-based path vs. the installer alternative, and warns that the key will appear in the transcript unless i_understand_key_goes_to_chat=true. It even gives follow-up guidance about using a scoped key and rotating it in the seller cabinet if exposed.

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