apiosk_create_wallet_api_key

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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, and the description's 'Create' is consistent with that. The description adds minimal context beyond the structured fields, notably failing to disclose that setting revoke_existing could invalidate current keys—a significant behavioral side effect. No contradiction with annotations, but the description does little to enrich the behavioral picture.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler words. It is efficiently structured, though for a 5-parameter tool with side-effect potential, the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

This is a 5-parameter mutation tool with a possible revocation side effect, low schema coverage, and a confusingly similar sibling (create_wallet_connect_string). The output schema covers return values, but the one-sentence description leaves out prerequisites, side-effect conditions, and selection context. For the tool's complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 only 20% (only private_key has a description), so the description carries a heavy burden to explain the parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of name, expiration_days, or revoke_existing, nor how they interact. The phrase 'API key / connect token' vaguely hints at what is created but adds no usable parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('API key / connect token') scoped to 'a managed wallet,' which clearly conveys the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling apiosk_create_wallet_connect_string, and the 'API key / connect token' phrasing slightly blurs that boundary. Still, the verb-resource pairing is strong enough to distinguish from the list/update/delete api_key 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apiosk_create_wallet_connect_string or apiosk_create_wallet. There are also no prerequisites stated (e.g., the wallet must already exist), and no mention of when one would choose revoke_existing behavior. The agent is left to infer the context entirely from the name and schema.

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