sbis_set_key

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description adds the materially important behavior: the key is written into the chat transcript, requires an explicit consent flag, is validated against the marketplace, saved with chmod 600, and never echoed back. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the verb and the warning, then per-argument notes. Well organized and mostly tight, though the placeholder '{fields}' and the multi-clause cabinet default add a little noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still covers the success path (marketplace validation, shop name reported) plus storage and consent requirements. Nothing an agent needs before invoking is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load: cabinet defaulting behavior (active cabinet, else shop name, else 'main') and the meaning/requirement of i_understand_key_goes_to_chat are both explained. The credentials parameter is only described as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})', an unresolved placeholder that leaves the nested contract opaque despite additionalProperties: true.

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+resource+channel ('Change / rotate the API key from chat'), which is unambiguous and separable from sibling cabinet tools like sbis_add_cabinet or sbis_use_cabinet. An agent can identify exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 a concrete trigger ('the old one expired or leaked') and names the preferred alternative (the installer, where the key never enters chat). It does not, however, relate this tool to the sibling cabinet/key-management tools, so the routing picture is incomplete.

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