ym_set_key

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing that the key enters the chat transcript, requires explicit user acknowledgment, is validated on success, saved locally with chmod 600, and never echoed back. This is highly transparent about side effects and security behavior, exceeding what the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) convey.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a prominent security warning, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, the critical caveat is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a security-sensitive write operation.

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?

For a tool that sets an API key, the description covers the essential operational details: the security risk, the required confirmation flag, cabinet selection behavior, validation, local storage, and output reporting. An output schema exists, so the lack of return-value details is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters meaningfully. 'cabinet' is fully described with its default resolution logic, and 'i_understand_key_goes_to_chat' is clearly flagged as mandatory. 'credentials' is described as a dict with required fields, though the exact fields are left as a placeholder ('{fields}'), which is somewhat vague but still indicates the structure.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Change / rotate the API key from chat' with a specific verb (change/rotate), a resource (API key), and a context (from chat). It also implies the target marketplace (Yandex Market) via the 'ym_' prefix and mentions 'marketplace' in the text, distinguishing it from sibling set_key tools for other marketplaces.

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 provides usage context, such as the default cabinet behavior ('my key expired just works') and the mandatory i_understand_key_goes_to_chat flag. It also mentions an alternative (the installer) that is safer, though it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over that alternative or other set_key tools. Still, it gives clear situational guidance.

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