Request API Key

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

Annotations only carry generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the real behavioral load and does so well: the browser-approval requirement, the 30-minute link validity, the one-time key pair retrieval, and the crucial caveat that the user may grant fewer permissions but never more, hence checking ping. None of this is derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and the returned authUrl come first, then the next-step call, then scope guidance, then the alternative. Every sentence carries operational information, though the scopes discussion is long enough that a reader has to parse several clauses to extract the rule.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly documents the return values (authUrl, requestToken, codeVerifier) and the sequencing between this tool and retrieve_api_key. Combined with the approval and permission caveats, an agent has everything needed to drive the full key-creation flow without guessing.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the meaningful scope choices with concrete examples ('["dns"]' for DNS work, everything except purchase and funding), noting read is always included, and explaining the consequence of omission. It does not add anything for 'name' beyond what the schema already says, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start creating a new LIVE Porkbun API key') and immediately scopes it as an approval-flow operation requiring no credentials to call. It explicitly names the follow-up sibling (retrieve_api_key) and the alternative sibling (create_sandbox_key), so an agent can place it precisely among the key-management 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('no credentials needed', account holder approves in browser), what to do next (call retrieve_api_key with requestToken and codeVerifier), and a clear alternative ('For a throwaway test key with fake credit, use create_sandbox_key instead'). It also states the when-not for omitting scopes ('Leave scopes out only if the key must buy').

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