update_geomi_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention what gets updated (beyond the API key), whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this is insufficient.

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 brief (two sentences) but includes irrelevant marketing content ('Geomi is the essential toolkit for Aptos developers') that doesn't help tool selection. The first sentence is functional but could be more specific about what aspects of the API key are updated.

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 6 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications. The high schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more context about this update operation's effects.

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 83%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema itself provides good documentation for most parameters. The description doesn't compensate for the 17% coverage gap or explain relationships between parameters.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('API Key for your Geomi Organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_geomi_api_key' or 'delete_geomi_api_key' beyond the obvious verb difference, and includes marketing fluff ('essential toolkit for Aptos developers') that doesn't clarify functionality.

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 like 'create_geomi_api_key' or 'delete_geomi_api_key'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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