payware_authentication_generate_rsa_keys

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description owes the behavioral detail they cannot express — yet it adds nothing about whether regeneration replaces or invalidates existing keys, what format (e.g. PEM) is returned, or whether the private key is exposed once only. It also leaves unexplained tension with idempotentHint=true, since key generation typically yields different output on each call.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording and the scope tag first. It is efficient but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 security-sensitive key-generation operation with no output schema, the description should convey at minimum the key format, whether existing keys are affected, and how the result is consumed. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the effect or follow-up steps of the call.

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 single parameter keySize is fully documented with bounds (2048–8192) in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Generate RSA key pair') plus a stated purpose ('for payware API authentication'), and the '[Merchant]' tag scopes the audience. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_jwt_token or test_jwt, though it never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other authentication tools (create_jwt_token, setup_sandbox_auth, validate_jwt), and no prerequisites such as sandbox vs production, or account/credential requirements. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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