configure_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 that the key is saved to ~/.model-radar/config.json, but it does not explain whether it overwrites existing keys, validates the key, or what the side effects are. More detail on behavior is needed for safe use.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The list of providers is somewhat lengthy but necessary for parameter clarity. Overall, every sentence serves a function, though the inline list could be trimmed or moved to schema enums for better structure.

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 configuration tool, the description covers the core action and file location. However, it omits what the tool returns (though an output schema exists), error conditions, and whether the key is tested before saving. Given the absence of annotations and the low schema coverage, the description is not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'provider' as a key from a listed set and 'api_key' as the value. While the list of providers is helpful, there is no detail on allowed formats, length, or validation for the api_key. This adds moderate meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Set an API key for a provider' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also lists the valid providers and mentions the config file location, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. Among siblings, no other tool configures keys, so it is well-distinguished.

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 implies usage for setting an API key, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., setup_guide). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. Usage is clear from the name and context, but guidance is minimal.

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