update_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation mutates an existing token and that authentication is required, but it does not mention reversibility, response behavior, or error conditions. 'API token required' is also ambiguous—it could refer to an auth credential or the token being updated.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences that directly state the action and a key prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits return value and error behavior, and the auth requirement is vague. It provides enough to make a reasonable call but leaves some ambiguity around the meaning of 'API token required.'

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 the schema already documents both required parameters (id and name). The description adds no additional parameter details, constraints, or format expectations beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 ('Update') and resource ('name of an existing API token'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_token, delete_token, and get_tokens. The action is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('API token required') and implies usage for renaming an existing token, but it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_token or delete_token. The intended context is clear enough from the wording, but there is no explicit routing or exclusion guidance.

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