rename_delivery_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the admin authorization requirement, an explicit statement that the secret and access are unaffected (narrowing the blast radius precisely), and the {ok:true} return shape for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and the authorization constraint before the side-effect clarification and return value.

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 low-complexity, 3-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what changes, the admin gate, what is explicitly not changed, and the return contract.

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 id, name and site are already documented in the schema, including the list_delivery_keys provenance hint for id. The description adds nothing about parameter format or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — changing a Delivery API key's label — and immediately scopes it to the label so an agent knows this is not create/revoke. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like create_delivery_key and revoke_delivery_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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Admin only') and, via the schema's reference to list_delivery_keys, the lookup path for the required id. It does not explicitly route against alternatives like revoke_delivery_key, but the intent is unambiguous from the purpose statement.

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