Test an API key

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

While annotations provide idempotentHint, the description enriches with concrete behavioral details: a successful provider probe activates the key, while auth/quota/network failures keep it out of the runtime pool, and it returns sanitized validation results and updated metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then outcome, then return value. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or 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 simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what side effects occur, and what it returns. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of return content ('sanitized validation result and updated key metadata') is sufficient and complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents (keyId as pooled BYOK key id, projectId as project id). It simply refers to 'key id' without further elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-test') and resource ('one pooled BYOK credential by key id'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like add_byok_key, remove_byok_key, and list_byok_keys. It also states the primary action and scope immediately.

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 clear usage context: it is for re-testing an existing pooled BYOK credential. It explains outcomes (activation vs. staying out of the pool) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, leaving inference to the agent.

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