Import API Key Credentials

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

The description discloses the two-phase behavior (preview vs. execute) and the effect of overwrite. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by stating overwrite=false appends (idempotent). No contradiction; it adds value beyond annotations by explaining the plan_handle mechanism.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Every part of the description adds value, with no wasted words.

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 the main workflow and parameter relationships. With no output schema, it mentions the returned plan_handle. It is fairly complete for a credential import tool, though could mention potential errors or confirmations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the workflow (e.g., plan_handle required for execute, file_path defaults, storage_scope options). This ties parameters together and provides context beyond the 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 clearly states the tool previews and persists API key credentials into .env files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_stored_credentials and remove_stored_credentials by focusing on importing apikey*.txt files. The two-step preview-execute workflow is explicitly described.

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 explains the preview-first pattern: default call previews and returns a plan_handle, then execute=true persists. It mentions overwrite=false appends different credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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