Update Scaleway API Key

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the critical non-rotation guarantee, that the access_key/secret_key pair never changes, and that only passed fields are modified while omitted fields remain unchanged. It also adds operational context about the consequences of delete+recreate.

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 compact and front-loaded, covering the core behavior, usage guidance, and patch semantics in three focused sentences with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter update tool with strong annotations and a fully descriptive schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral nuances thoroughly. No output schema is needed for tool selection/invocation, and no critical context is missing.

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 already documents each parameter with formats, examples, and 'omit to leave unchanged' notes. The description's patch-semantics statement largely reinforces schema details rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it changes an existing API key's description, expiry, or default_project_id, and explicitly clarifies that it does NOT rotate the secret. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_api_key, delete_api_key, and update_application.

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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of delete+recreate for metadata-only changes, provides concrete examples like extending an expiry or fixing a stale description, and explains why delete+recreate would be harmful. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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