user_passkey_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only identifies the operation as a POST rename; it says nothing about authentication requirements, side effects, idempotency, or the behavior of the 'confirm' parameter (which is documented only in the schema). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the HTTP path and the actual action. However, it includes meta fields ('Тег' and 'Спека') that do not help an agent invoke the tool, adding minor noise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, a nested body object with undocumented properties, and a special 'confirm' parameter, the description is incomplete. It omits required behavioral context and parameter semantics needed to correctly invoke a mutation tool.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 100%, but the nested body properties (name, credential_id) lack types and descriptions. The description's 'rename by identifier' implicitly maps to the body fields, adding marginal value over the schema, but it does not compensate for the nested-object documentation gap.

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 (Переименовать/Rename) and resource (зарегистрированный Passkey), and 'по идентификатору' hints at the credential_id parameter. It distinguishes the tool from sibling passkey tools like user_passkey_get or user_passkey_delete, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied: rename a registered passkey by identifier. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named among the many sibling passkey and user tools.

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