api_keys_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a full replace or partial PATCH, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether existing IP restrictions are overwritten, or what happens to a key's active tokens. For a destructive mutation with annotations already flagging risk, that is a real gap.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the route declared on its own line. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: two lines that convey almost nothing the schema and annotations do not already convey.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested body object, an undocumented schema, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this returns the updated key, what the partial-update semantics are, or which fields are safely omitted.

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% and the body is a nested object with three properties (ips, name, isActive), of which only ips carries any description. The description supplies no meaning for `id` (api key identifier), for the body envelope, or for field constraints like the 3-32 character name limit, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb ("Edit") and a resource ("your existing api key data") plus the underlying route PATCH /api-keys/{id}, which distinguishes it from api_keys_create and api_keys_get_list. However, "api key data" is vague about what is actually editable, so the agent still has to open the schema to learn the tool's scope.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g., key must exist, ownership required), and no reference to alternatives such as api_keys_create. The only routing signal is the raw HTTP route, which implies an update of an existing key but leaves the selection logic to the agent.

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