mailkite_create_scoped_key

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: it requires a management session token and explains the security property that the site never holds the master key. It does not detail response behavior, but the essential create-operation traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a practical use case and an important auth prerequisite. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter creation tool with rich schema descriptions, the description covers the purpose, scope, typical deployment, and authentication requirement. The lack of an output schema means the return value is not explicitly described, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are already specific, including examples and the requirement that the domain belong to the calling account. The description reinforces the domain-scoping concept but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the operation as creating a key limited to one domain, using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from account-level credentials by noting the site never holds the master key, making the tool's specific role obvious among many siblings.

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 gives a concrete use case (per-site installs like a WordPress plugin) and a prerequisite (management session token). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as app passwords or account-wide API keys, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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