Import API Key Credentials

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description meaningfully adds that the default call writes nothing and that persistence requires both execute=true and a plan handle. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens to existing credentials when overwrite=true replaces them, but the preview-first guarantee is the key non-obvious behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its storage targets, then the workflow rule, then the overwrite nuance. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no required params and no output schema, the description adequately covers the flow, the write-safety model, and the execute gate. It could say a bit more about the preview output (the plan_handle) or error/rollback behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real nuance: overwrite=false 'appends different credentials as another connection', which clarifies the semantic effect beyond the schema's 'replace vs append' wording, and it reinforces the plan_handle/execute coupling.

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 precise verb pair ('Preview and persist') and a specific resource ('apikey*.txt credentials into local/global .env'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling credential tools such as list_stored_credentials and switch_connection, which read or select rather than import.

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?

Explicitly defines the two-phase contract: default call previews and returns a plan_handle, then call again with execute=true and that handle to persist. It also states what overwrite=false does and when to use it, leaving no ambiguity about how or when to invoke the tool.

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