panelica_api_keys_patch_v1_api_keys_key_id

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

The description explicitly discloses that the call is mutating and changes server state, and it adds the required scope accounts:write—context beyond the annotations' readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: action, HTTP method, category, required scope, and mutation flag are each on their own line with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint with an open body schema ('Schema not statically declared — see API docs') and no output schema, yet the description gives no indication of which API key properties can be updated or what the response contains. The basics for selection are present, but an agent still lacks enough information to build a correct PATCH body.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents key_id as a path parameter and body as an application/json object with an undeclared schema and additionalProperties allowed.

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 opens with 'Update api key' and confirms the HTTP method (PATCH) and resource path, so an agent can tell this is a modification operation on an existing API key. It differentiates from GET/DELETE/POST siblings, though it does not contrast with the regenerate sibling.

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?

The action verb and PATCH method imply this tool is for modifying an existing API key, and the required scope 'accounts:write' gives an authorization condition. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling POST, DELETE, or regenerate endpoints, leaving the selection mostly to inference.

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