yaaif_api_key_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses the critical one-time plaintext return ('Plaintext is returned once'), which is essential for an agent to handle the response correctly. It also implies scoped access but does not mention other behaviors like idempotency or side effects. The plaintext warning adds substantial value beyond the obvious 'create' action.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs essential security and binding context. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, a critical return-value behavior, and usage guidance, but the parameter semantics gap (especially allowlists) leaves the tool incomplete for an agent. No output schema exists, so the description could have explained the return shape beyond the plaintext note. Overall decent but not fully complete for a creation tool with a nested parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It gives a hint about 'scopes' through the example 'context_store:read/write' and the least-privilege recommendation, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter or the nested 'allowlists' object at all. This leaves two of three parameters functionally undocumented.

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+resource ('Create a scoped API key') and the intended use case ('for MCP/downstream platform access'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling API key tools (list, get, update, rotate, delete, bind_deployment) by focusing on creation and mentioning binding separately.

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 clear context and actionable guidance: it names the binding next step (yaaif_api_key_bind_deployment), warns against a risky pattern (injecting platform S2S into MCP pods), and recommends least-privilege scopes with an example. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool relative to alternatives, but the guidance is specific and practical.

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