update_beacon_signing_key

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates a key, but does not mention side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, required fields, permissions, or what happens if the key does not exist. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it provides minimal information. It is appropriately concise, but not a model of thorough description.

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 no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, does not indicate that 'id' is required, and gives no sense of the response or side effects. The simplicity of the schema partially compensates, but the description leaves key usage questions unanswered.

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%, and both 'id' and 'key_name' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Update an existing beacon signing key' gives a specific verb (update) and resource (beacon signing key), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/get/list operations. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools beyond the verb itself, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description merely states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or pointers to create/delete/validate tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and verb.

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