cigchat_installed_mini_app_update_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the required scope ('Manage Team'), the API endpoint pattern, and the auth-type restriction. It does not detail side effects (e.g., overwriting existing keys) or error handling, but the provided context is substantial for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs in the verb, resource, constraint, endpoint, and required scope. No wasted words, and all essential information is immediately visible.

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 relatively simple update tool, the description covers the key aspects: action, resource, auth requirement, and endpoint. It lacks details about return values or behavior on invalid input, but since no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, this is acceptable. The main gap is the unclear role of the api_key parameter.

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 does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the api_key parameter's semantics remain somewhat ambiguous (the schema says 'property name is defined in the mini app'), and the description doesn't clarify whether this is a new value or a property reference.

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 action ('Update the config'), the target resource ('Installed mini app'), and a key constraint ('only for the mini app with auth type apikey'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like the list operation, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit usage constraints: limited to apikey-auth mini apps and requires the 'Manage Team' scope. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the stated restriction.

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