vk_set_key

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

The description discloses critical side effects beyond the annotations: the key enters the chat transcript, it is saved locally with chmod 600, never echoed back, and validated against the marketplace. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and the critical warning, then uses a compact Args section followed by success behavior. Every sentence contributes operational guidance without padding.

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 covers purpose, side effects, parameter behavior, and success reporting, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. It is incomplete in one critical spot: the credentials argument's required fields are left as an unresolved placeholder, making it hard for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 must compensate, and it explains cabinet's defaulting logic and i_understand_key_goes_to_chat's requirement. However, the only required parameter, credentials, is described only as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})', a placeholder that does not enumerate the actual fields an agent needs.

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 action and resource: 'Change / rotate the API key from chat', and includes concrete scenarios like an expired or leaked key. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling tool, though the API-key resource is unique among the sibling names.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('old one expired or leaked'), an explicit safer alternative (installer), and a follow-up recommendation (rotate in seller cabinet if exposed). The default-cabinet behavior also explains the common 'my key expired' case.

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