set_provider_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses local persistence to ~/.postward-creative/keys.json, file permission 0600, and the data-flow guarantee that keys are sent only to the relevant provider. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior or failure handling, and the 'never leave this machine — sent only to the provider' wording is slightly loose, but overall it is candid about side effects.

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?

Two sentences with the main action front-loaded and the security detail in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema data. It is easy to scan and process.

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 simple 2-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, storage location, file permissions, and data handling. It does not explicitly mention whether an existing key is overwritten or what a successful call returns, but those are minor gaps for this kind of tool.

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%: provider and key already have clear descriptions plus an enum, and required status is in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. Nothing is missing, but no extra semantic value is provided either.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure an AI provider API key.' It clearly identifies the tool as credential management, distinguishing it from the media-generation and processing siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is not a content operation.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to set or update a provider key before using provider-backed tools. However, the description never explicitly says when to use it versus related tools like get_provider_status, nor does it state when it should not be used. It relies on inference rather than providing direct usage guidance.

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