create_auth_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the returned key value is only shown once and must be stored securely. It does not mention permissions or persistence effects, but this security caveat is material and goes beyond a generic 'creates a key' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for the core action, one important security warning, then a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 a simple 3-parameter create operation and an output schema present, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: required parameters, format constraints, the optional API key fallback, and the one-time visibility warning. Minor missing context like permissions or when to prefer list/delete siblings keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so fully: 'name' is described as a unique human-readable label, 'expiry' has an explicit YYYY-MM-DD format, and 'api_key' has its environment variable fallback documented. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema properties.

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: 'Create a new named API key.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_auth_keys and delete_auth_key without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related auth key operations, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool should be used. The intended use is only implied by the name and verb.

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