write_passkey_name

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that an empty name removes the passkey name, a non-obvious destructive path the annotations alone would not reveal.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action and the id source come first and the destructive edge case is appended. Every clause carries information.

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 output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the id provenance and the name semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is minor: it omits the name length constraint already present in the schema.

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 must carry the load, and it does: it explains where 'id' comes from (read_account) and defines the special semantics of an empty 'name'. It does not mention the schema's 40-character cap on name, so it is not a full compensation.

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-and-resource pair ('Name ... the profile's passkeys') and clarifies the scope ('profile's'), so an agent can tell it apart from the many read_/write_ siblings. It is marginally less crisp than a 5 because the verb 'Name' is informal and the effect is only fully understood after the trailing clause.

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?

It supplies the prerequisite for the id ('ids from read_account') and states the edge-case behavior ('An empty name removes it'), which is exactly the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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