create_developer_key

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

Annotation Contradiction: the annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the description says 'Mint a new developer API key' and that the plaintext key is returned 'ONCE ONLY,' which implies each call creates a distinct key and repeated calls produce different results. This directly contradicts the idempotency hint. The description does add useful security context (AAL2 requirement, one-time plaintext), but the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 deliver the core action, prerequisite, and a critical security warning with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 security-sensitive creation tool with no output schema, the description appropriately highlights the prerequisite, the one-time-only return, and the need to save immediately. It could additionally mention the response shape or explicitly contrast with rotate/revoke, but the core operational context is present.

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 75%, and the description compensates by explaining the env parameter through the ac_live_*/ac_test_* prefix and the access_token requirement through the AAL2 session prerequisite. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially for the undocumented env field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mint') with a specific resource ('developer API key') and immediately clarifies key formats (ac_live_*/ac_test_*), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_developer_keys, rotate_developer_key, and revoke_developer_key.

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 clearly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Requires AAL2 session (enroll_mfa + verify_mfa first).' This gives the agent concrete context for when it is safe to call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops 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.