update_api_key

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but no further details. The description adds key behavioral traits: changes take effect immediately, type/sub-type stay fixed, and the call returns success without rotating the secret. This goes beyond annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose and sibling differentiation, followed by behavioral details. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the 11 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers key effects, constraints, and return behavior. However, it could mention that the 'id' is required and that other parameters are optional, but the schema already indicates this. No major gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description only lists general categories (name, description, scopes, defaults, limits) without adding detail beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'Update an API key's name, description, scopes, defaults, or limits', specifying the verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools delete_api_key and create_api_key, which is essential for correct selection.

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 tells when to use this tool vs alternatives (unlike delete/create), but does not mention scenarios where it should not be used (e.g., changing type/sub-type is impossible). The immediate effect and fixed fields provide good context, but some exclusion guidance is missing.

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