yaaif_api_key_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but doesn't describe side effects, idempotency, whether updates are partial or full replacements, authorization requirements, or the impact on existing scopes/allowlists. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the action and lists key fields. It is efficient with no filler words. The structure is clear and easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested allowlists object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the required key_id, the effect of partial updates, the semantics of clear_expiry, or any potential errors. An agent would lack essential context to call this tool correctly and safely.

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 does explain the purpose of name, scopes, allowlists, and enabled flag by naming them, but it omits clear_expiry entirely and provides no semantics for how allowlists are structured or how the update behaves (e.g., merge vs replace). The required key_id is also not mentioned. The description adds some value but is incomplete.

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 the action (Update) and resource (API key) and lists several updatable fields (name, scopes, allowlists, enabled flag). It distinguishes from siblings like create, rotate, delete, and bind_deployment. However, it omits the 'clear_expiry' parameter, which is part of the schema, and doesn't explicitly mention that this operates on an existing key, though that is implied by 'update'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create, rotate, or delete. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions. The description implies use for modifying existing keys, but it doesn't state when not to use it or direct the agent to a more appropriate sibling.

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