ساخت کلید API فروشگاه

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral load, and it does disclose two valuable traits: the secret stays inside the MCP process and only a masked value is returned. It omits other important behaviors for a mutation tool — whether the operation is idempotent, whether an existing key is replaced, what permissions/scope are granted, and what the masked value looks like.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the secret-handling caveat. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 credential-creating mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on secret handling and return shape. It falls short on parameter meaning (storeId, its optionality) and on lifecycle behavior, so an agent can call it but not fully predict the outcome.

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% for the single storeId parameter, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions storeId or its UUID format. It is also silent on the notable fact that storeId is not required — presumably defaulting to the selected store — which is a behavior an agent needs to understand.

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 specific verb+resource: creating a store-scoped Merchant API key in TheyPaid, and clarifies the return value is only a masked key. It implicitly contrasts with theypaid_revoke_store_api_key by establishing the create side, though it does not name that 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?

The final sentence ('the key is used for invoice and payment tools in this session') implies when to use it, giving real context for provisioning. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement about whether creating a new key invalidates a prior one, and no mention of prerequisites such as being connected to the account.

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