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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses one valuable trait — the key is revealed exactly once, implying it cannot be retrieved later — but omits other relevant behaviors such as the credential's security sensitivity, required permissions to create it, or what the response will contain.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with zero waste; verb and resource are front-loaded and the critical once-only reveal behavior earns its place. This is appropriately sized for a simple 3-param tool.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return value; 'reveal it once' hints at the secret key being returned but never states the response contents. It also leaves scopes semantics and the irrecoverability of a lost key underspecified, though the flat 3-param complexity keeps the gaps moderate.

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 already documents name and organization_id (67% coverage); only the scopes array is undocumented. The word 'scoped' hints that the scopes parameter restricts permissions, adding marginal meaning beyond 'array of strings', but no format, valid values, or examples are given.

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 ('create') and resource ('scoped API key'), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools commsharbor_api_key_revoke and commsharbor_api_keys. The 'reveal it once' qualifier adds a defining characteristic that further pins down exactly what this tool does.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of counterpart tools like revoke or list. Usage context is only weakly implied by the verb and resource rather than stated.

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