keys_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a prerequisite and the REST endpoint, but does not state that this is a mutating and potentially billing-relevant action, whether the created key secret is shown only once, or whether there are side effects like key invalidation or expiration behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; both clauses add useful information about what is minted and what is required. It is appropriately sized for the core action, even though more context is needed elsewhere.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response looks like, whether the created key is sensitive or single-return, how the account-key prerequisite relates to the parameters, or what the operational consequences of minting a key are.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the seven parameters. It only echoes the kind enum via 'run or sub' and leaves opBudget, namespaces, ttlSeconds, wipeOnExpire, tools, and name unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently configure them.

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 states a concrete action ('Mint'), the object ('run or sub API key'), and the source ('account key'), making what the tool does unambiguous even without the name. It also aligns with the required kind parameter and is clearly distinct from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 clearly conveys the intended context: create a run or sub API key only when you have an account tp_ key. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no sibling performs a similar key-creation function, so this is a minor gap.

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