Set Proxenio API Key

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: the key must be generated by a verified human principal, inherits trust tier, and returns confirmation or format error. It does not contradict annotations and enriches understanding of the operation's behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and is appropriately sized for a configuration tool. However, the Args section repeats schema information verbatim, which adds slight redundancy. Overall, it earns its place and is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: the prerequisite call, the key's provenance and format, the return value, and explicit usage scenarios. The annotations cover safety properties. Nothing essential is missing.

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%: the schema already fully describes the api_key parameter, including pattern, length, and generation URL. The description's Args section merely repeats what the schema states (e.g., 'starts with prx_', 36 characters) without adding new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure the API key for authenticating with Proxenio's agent API.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like proxenio_get_matches or proxenio_accept_match, which operate on matches rather than configuration.

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 description explicitly says this must be called before using proxenio_get_matches or proxenio_accept_match, and provides concrete 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' scenarios. This is outstanding guidance for when to invoke the tool versus alternatives.

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