patch_api_keys_by_id

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Update', such as whether it performs a partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. The only extra sentence advises reading GET/schema, which is more about parameter preparation than behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the action and endpoint. It includes only necessary elements: the action, endpoint, and a pointer for parameter details. The typo 'api api-keys' is minor, and the structure is efficient with no wasted words.

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 update operation with an output schema, the description is adequate. It points to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the body fields, which is a reasonable fallback. However, it does not specify whether the update is partial or full, nor does it mention any permissions or consequences, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely labels id as a path parameter and body as a request payload, adding nothing beyond what the schema's types already convey. The pointer to GET or /schema is helpful for discovering fields but does not describe the parameters' meaning or structure, leaving the agent without concrete guidance on what to supply.

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 'Update api api-keys' with the endpoint PATCH /api/api-keys/{id}, clearly indicating a mutation of an existing API key. It distinguishes from sibling create/delete/list operations by the verb 'Update' and the resource scope. The wording 'api api-keys' is slightly awkward but does not obscure the purpose.

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 instructs to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects', which is a useful prerequisite for calling the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of create_api_keys or delete_api_keys_by_id, relying on the reader to infer from the verb 'Update'. There is no mention of context like authentication or prerequisites beyond reading the schema.

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