api_key_generate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authentication method (uses PERPLEXITY_API_KEY) and what the tool returns (auth_token, timestamp, token_name). However, it does not mention potential side effects, such as whether the key is immediately active or if there are rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information: the action, endpoint, return values, and authentication requirement. There is no fluff or redundant repetition.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the action, endpoint, return values, and authentication requirement, which is nearly complete. It could be slightly more explicit about the environment variable being mandatory, but overall it is well-rounded for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already covers the only parameter (token_name) with a description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description also mentions 'optional token_name' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Generate a new Perplexity API key' with a specific endpoint (POST /generate_auth_token). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like api_key_revoke and api_key_rotate, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage through its name and function but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like rotate or revoke. It provides a prerequisite (PERPLEXITY_API_KEY must be set) but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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