Create a routing key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the key is returned only once, and it optionally wires the provider chain in the same call. It omits potential costs or budget effects, but core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, and no extraneous information. The sibling pointer is useful and compact.

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 create tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of most parameters and gives no indication of expected response or side effects beyond the one-time key return. The sibling reference helps only partially.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. 'Provider chain' hints at the providers array, but mode, label, account_token, monthly_budget_usd, and provider sub-fields are left undefined, leaving the agent without enough to choose correct values.

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 uses a specific verb 'Mints' with a concrete resource ('pllm_ routing key') and clarifies its one-time return. It clearly differentiates from siblings like proxyllm_list_routing_keys and proxyllm_introspect_key by focusing on creation/issuance.

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?

It states the intended use ('for OPENAI_API_KEY-style use against the gateway') and explicitly points to a sibling for discovery ('discover wireable lane ids with proxyllm_list_routing_keys include_lanes'), providing both when-to-use and an alternative.

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