panelica_api_keys_patch_v1_api_keys_key_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Updates,' with no details on behavior like idempotency, error handling, authorization needs, or side effects. The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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-loaded, but includes the HTTP line which is redundant with the tool name pattern. It is not overly verbose but could be more streamlined.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits what fields can be updated, required body structure, and response expectations. For a tool with a nested object parameter, more context is needed for correct usage.

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% (both key_id and body are described in the schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The body properties have empty descriptions in the schema, but the description does not compensate.

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 clearly states 'Updates an existing API key,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like panelica_api_keys_get_v1_api_keys_key_id (retrieve), panelica_api_keys_delete_v1_api_keys_key_id (delete), and panelica_api_keys_post_v1_api_keys_key_id_regenerate (regenerate).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the key must exist), limitations, or when to use update versus regenerate. This leaves the agent uncertain about appropriate contexts.

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