login_keys_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Update a login key' and gives argument labels; there is no mention of side effects, whether the update is immediate, reversibility, required permissions, or what the payload may meaningfully contain. This is a sparse mutation description with no safety-related disclosure.

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 cleanly formatted, but being concise is not the same as being complete. Every line is stubby, and the confirm note is misleading. It earns a middle score because it is readable and front-loaded, yet it sacrifices necessary substance.

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 tool with no annotations and low schema detail, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what a valid payload looks like, what 'confirm' actually does, whether the operation is destrictive, or what success/failure looks like. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the missing preconditions and behavioral context remain critical gaps.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the vague schema fields. Instead it merely restates 'Key id' and 'Patch body', which adds almost no meaning. Worse, it states 'confirm: Required' while the schema shows confirm as optional with a default of false, creating a factual conflict that could mislead an agent.

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 clear action and resource: 'Update a login key.' This modestly distinguishes it from the sibling login_keys_create, login_keys_delete, and login_keys_get operations. It does not elaborate on which fields are updatable, but the core purpose is not ambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus login_keys_create, login_keys_delete, or login_keys_get. It does not state any prerequisites such as the key already existing, and it never mentions when a caller should choose update over recreate.

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