create_consumer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'With API key' hints at a side effect, but it doesn't clarify whether the key is returned, if duplicate emails are rejected, whether permissions are required, or what happens to existing consumers. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action. It is not verbose, though it omits potentially valuable details. For a simple create tool, this length is acceptable, though it could be more informative without becoming bloated.

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 and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return values and constraints. It does not state what the response contains (e.g., the API key), whether the email must be unique, or any error conditions. Given the sibling tools for key management, the agent might need to know that the key is created but not how it is returned.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'API key' is a consequence, not a parameter explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Create a new consumer'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_service and create_plan. The added 'with API key' provides extra context about the outcome, though it doesn't name any alternative it is not.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: use this when you need to create a consumer. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives like get_consumer for retrieval. The description is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the decision from the tool name alone.

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