update_api_key

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and openWorldHint=true (may have side effects). The description does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations imply, but it does mention that the operation requires confirmation ('confirm' parameter is visible in schema). However, it does not disclose any side effects or prerequisites beyond that. With annotations provided, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key editable fields. It is efficient and does not waste words. The inclusion of the endpoint reference is helpful but not verbose. It earns a high score for succinctness.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters with 5 required, and no output schema. The description gives a high-level summary but omits guidance on the confirm flag's purpose (which is critical for mutations) and does not explain the login_notify_method options. Since annotations already indicate mutation, but the description could be more explicit about side effects or confirmation requirements, it is only moderately complete.

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 86%, meaning most parameters are already described. The description lists the key editable fields (name, IP white list, notifications, activity), which maps to several parameters. It does not add details about the confirm requirement or the enum values for login_notify_method, but the schema already covers those. Thus, the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Изменить' – to change), a resource ('API-ключа'), and the specific editable attributes (name, IP whitelist, notifications, activity). It also includes the endpoint 'api_keys/edit', which adds precision. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_api_key and delete_api_key.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_api_key is the correct tool for creating new keys, or that delete_api_key is for removal. An agent might confuse update with create if it needs to modify an existing key, though the description's verb does imply modification. No contextual conditions are stated.

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