update_api_key

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the endpoint and the list of changeable fields, but it does not disclose side effects, such as the requirement for confirm=true to apply changes (which is only in the schema) or potential impact on active sessions. It is adequate but not enriched beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that immediately states the verb, resource, and main modifiable fields. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this description gives a sufficient overview of the purpose and main fields. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover the safety profile. It could mention the confirm requirement, but that is already in the schema, so the description is mostly 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%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description repeats the names of key parameters (name, IP, notifications, activity) but adds no deeper semantic detail beyond the schema, and it omits mention of the confirm and login_notify_address parameters.

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' (change) with the resource 'API-ключа' (API key) and enumerates the modifiable fields: name, IP whitelist, notifications, activity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like create_api_key, delete_api_key, and get_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?

The description clearly implies the context for use: modifying parameters of an existing API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the verb 'Изменить' and the resource scope make the use case unambiguous relative to create/delete operations.

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