add_product_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful detail about FIFO allocation ('Each customer gets one unique key on purchase (FIFO)'), which is not captured in the schema. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as duplicate handling, error behavior, permissions, or idempotency, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded: 'Upload unique keys/codes to a product's key pool.' It then adds one behavioral note (FIFO) and example use cases. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain outcomes or response behavior. While it gives the core functionality and FIFO logic, it does not mention what happens after a successful upload (e.g., response body, number of keys added) or how errors are surfaced. This leaves the context incomplete for an agent invoking the tool.

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 all three parameters (productId, keys, label) are already described in the schema. The main description reinforces the purpose ('key pool') but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline of 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: 'Upload unique keys/codes to a product's key pool.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the FIFO note further clarifies its role. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_product_keys (which is read-only) and get_key_pool_stats (which reports statistics), so purpose clarity is high.

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 contextual use cases ('use this for license keys, activation codes, gift cards, etc.'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar operations, so it falls short of a 5.

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