tgtrack_new_report_key

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

The description discloses the destructive behavior of invalidating the previous key and requires confirm:true, adding important safety context. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it could detail the invalidation process more, it effectively warns about the impact.

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 a single sentence with a warning emoji, conveying the essential information efficiently and front-loading the caution. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, destructive effect, and the confirm requirement. However, it omits explanation of the required 'chatID' parameter and does not describe the return value or output. Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), this is a notable gap.

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?

The description adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter by stating it must be true, but the schema has a default of false, creating a contradiction. The 'chatID' parameter is required but completely unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly.

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 that the tool creates a new report key and invalidates the previous one. The verb 'create' and resource 'report key' are specific, and the invalidation detail distinguishes it from other tgtrack tools, none of which appear to involve report keys.

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 mentions that the tool requires confirm:true, providing a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other key management tools like tgtrack_new_api_token) or when not to use it.

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