update_api_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the editable field set but omits meaningful behavior such as the mandatory 'confirm' gate required by the schema, permission/auth requirements, or reversibility. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and endpoint first and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward update tool, though it is terse enough to omit useful context.

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 7-parameter mutation with 5 required fields, the description is minimally viable: annotations cover safety and the schema covers params, but it never mentions the required 'confirm' flag or any return behavior. No output schema exists, so nothing external compensates for the missing operational context.

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%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description paraphrases some of them (name, IP allowlist, notifications, active flag) but adds no format, constraint, or enum detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 API key settings') and enumerates the editable fields (name, IP allowlist, notifications, active flag). The verb 'update' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_api_key, delete_api_key, get_api_key and list_api_keys. It lacks an explicit sibling callout, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the other api_key siblings, nor any prerequisite or precondition stated. The endpoint reference (api_keys/edit) hints at context but does not tell the agent when this is the right choice.

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