licensing_create_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so excellently. It explicitly warns that the key is returned ONLY ONCE and must be stored immediately — a critical behavioral trait that could otherwise lead to data loss. It also discloses the permission restriction (owner-only) and the one-per-instance convention. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. Every sentence carries meaningful information: the action, the permission restriction, the critical one-time-return warning, and the one-per-instance guidance. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then critical caveats.

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 it's a simple 1-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the essential operational concerns: permission context, the one-time-return hazard, and deployment guidance. A mid-complexity mutation tool with irrecoverable output is fully addressed.

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 single parameter instanceName already has a clear description ('Human-readable name for the self-hosted instance e.g. Production, Staging'). The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage and only one simple param, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's one-per-instance note indirectly informs parameter usage.

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 states a specific action ('Generate a new license key') with a clear resource ('self-hosted Storno instance'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like licensing_list_keys (listing) and licensing_revoke_key (revoking) by focusing on creation. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 provides contextual guidance: only the organization owner can create keys, and each self-hosted instance should use its own key. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the 'each instance should use its own key' rule gives practical usage direction. It lacks an explicit 'use licensing_validate to test keys' pointer, but the context is clear.

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