wwa_generate_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that the call requires no authentication, returns a key with 'free' tier, and that the key is used via 'x-api-key' in later calls. This is meaningful behavioral context that goes beyond the schema. It doesn't detail rate limits or key expiration, but for a simple key-generation tool, the provided transparency is adequate.

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 just two sentences, with the primary verb and object up front. Every clause adds value: purpose, auth behavior, return tier, and usage instruction. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what the tool does, that no auth is needed, what the response includes ('free' tier key), and how to use the key. The only slight omission is the exact return format (e.g., JSON shape), but the usage instruction via 'x-api-key' partially compensates. Overall it's complete enough for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'name' with a description and default, covering 100% of parameters. The schema already explains the label's meaning with examples. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high and the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a new API key for accessing Works With Agents MCP tools.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, none of which handle key generation. The purpose is unambiguous across the full description.

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 direct usage context: 'No authentication required' and instructs to 'Use the returned key in subsequent calls via the 'x-api-key' argument.' While it doesn't name alternative tools (because none exist for key generation), it tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool in a workflow. The only minor gap is not stating when not to use it, but that is implicit.

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