configure_api_key

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and succeeds: it details the local-server persistence path (~/.config/maginary/api_key, chmod 600, survives restarts), the hosted-server non-persistence behavior (persisted: false, per-request Authorization: Bearer header), and the confirmation response shape. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering in the first two sentences, and the local/hosted distinction is logically grouped. It is slightly verbose with the Args/Returns block, but every sentence delivers necessary operational information, so the length is justified.

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?

Given the environment-dependent complexity (local vs hosted persistence), the description is complete: it covers ordering, input provenance, file paths, permissions, restart behavior, per-request auth headers, and the persisted:false response flag. An output schema exists to document the return value, so return-detail omission is acceptable.

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 0% — the schema only labels api_key as a required string. The description compensates fully by specifying the exact provenance: 'The full API key string returned by manage_api_key.' An agent knows precisely what value to pass and where to obtain it, which is the critical semantic the schema fails to convey.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Activate an API key') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling manage_api_key by framing this tool as the activation step that follows key creation. The sequencing reference ('Call this after manage_api_key(action='create') returns a raw_key') makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: call this after manage_api_key(action='create') returns a raw_key. It also names the prerequisite sibling tool and explains environment-specific setup requirements. However, it does not state when-not to use it or enumerate alternative tools besides the implicit manage_api_key reference.

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