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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the secret and access are preserved and that an approval-screen permission is required, which annotations cannot express; it stops short of richer detail like failure modes or rename conflicts.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by scope and prerequisite. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully documents both params. The description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: the permission prerequisite and the guarantee that the secret/access are untouched. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (including the example name and the pointer to list_api_keys for public_id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Rename an ActivitySmith API key") and immediately bounds the effect ("The key secret and its access do not change"), which separates it from the create/delete/list API key siblings in the same family.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it names the required "Manage API keys" permission and what is unaffected by the operation, so the agent knows this is a metadata-only rename. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with list_api_keys or delete_api_key, and there is no update_api_key sibling to route away from.

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