Update API Key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that only the name is mutated (not the key material or scopes), but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, whether name uniqueness is enforced, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation and target are established immediately. Nothing is repeated and nothing wasteful is included.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does. However, with no annotations and no return-value documentation, an agent still lacks confirmation of side effects and outcome shape.

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%: both `id` and `name` are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes that a name is being changed and adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update the name of an existing API key") and narrows the scope to the name field, which separates it from create-api-key, get-api-key, and delete-api-key. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the word "existing" — an agent can infer this is for renaming a key that already exists rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions, and no reference to alternatives.

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