Update API Key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects, response content, required permissions, or whether a rename overrides the previous name. The mutation is implied but no further behavioral context is given.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It states the action, target, and scope efficiently.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter update operation, and the schema already provides full parameter descriptions. The description is complete enough for the agent to decide to call the tool; only output or side-effect details are absent, which is minor for this low-complexity 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?

The input schema already documents both required parameters (id and name) with clear descriptions. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much; it does not, but that is acceptable.

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 a specific action ('Rename') tied to a specific resource ('an existing API key') and narrows it to 'in Resend.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools that create, list, or remove API keys.

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 implies usage because it says to rename an existing key, so the context is reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create-api-key or remove-api-key.

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