licensing_create_key

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

Annotations only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds genuinely critical behavior not available elsewhere: the 64-character key is shown ONLY ONCE and must be stored immediately, and creation is restricted to the organization owner. These are exactly the facts an agent must know before invoking.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the highest-risk fact (one-time key display) front-loaded after the purpose statement. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return value (full 64-character key, shown once) and the authorization requirement. Minor gaps: it doesn't say whether instanceName is required or what happens to previously issued keys for the same instance.

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 100% and the single optional parameter (instanceName) is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a new license key') plus the scope ('for a self-hosted Storno instance'). This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling licensing_list_keys, licensing_revoke_key, and licensing_validate tools without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Only the organization owner can create license keys') and a usage rule ('Each self-hosted instance should use its own key'). It does not explicitly exclude cases or point to a sibling for listing/validating existing keys, so it falls short of a 5.

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