passkey_update_passkey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'PATCH' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about the confirmation/preview workflow (the confirm parameter), permissions required, or what happens to the passkey. 'Tags: Passkeys Controller' adds no behavioral value.

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?

It is short and front-loads 'Update passkey', but two of the three lines are redundant HTTP-path and controller-tag noise rather than information. It is concise mainly because it contains almost nothing.

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 mutation endpoint with a nested required body object, a non-GET confirm/preview semantic, and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot tell what fields are updatable or that confirm:true is needed to actually execute.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions the required body.id/body.name fields or the confirm flag. The agent must infer everything from the schema, including that name is a constrained 2-30 char string.

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 verb and resource ('Update passkey') and the HTTP verb PATCH, so the agent knows this mutates an existing passkey. However, it gives no detail about what is being updated (the name) and does not distinguish it from siblings like passkey_delete_passkey or passkey_get_active_passkeys beyond the raw endpoint string.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other passkey tools (registration_options, authentication, delete, get_active). The only hints are the HTTP method and a tag label, which is not usage guidance.

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