apiosk_update_wallet_api_key

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the concrete actions (rename, revoke, extend) but does not elaborate on side effects like what revoking actually does to existing credentials or whether changes are reversible. It's consistent with annotations and adds modest behavioral context.

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 no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose immediately and avoids redundant repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 description is sufficient for selecting the tool, but with five undocumented parameters and no explicit alternatives or parameter guidance, it leaves room for invocation ambiguity (especially expiration_days semantics). The presence of an output schema helps, but the overall description is minimal for a mutating API key management operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'rename' to name, 'revoke' to revoke, and 'extend' to expiration_days, but it does not clarify semantics like how expiration_days is relative to or whether key_id/wallet_id have special constraints. Partial compensation, but not enough to fully document five 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 uses specific verbs ('Rename, revoke, or extend') with a clear resource ('existing managed wallet API key'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_wallet_api_key, delete_wallet_api_key, and list_wallet_api_keys, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 phrase 'existing managed wallet API key' implies the tool is for updating existing keys, not creating or deleting them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of apiosk_create_wallet_api_key or apiosk_delete_wallet_api_key, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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