update_api_key

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

The description adds information beyond annotations by explaining that the new value is validated against the tenant plan and that the operation is non-destructive. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and every sentence adding relevant context. No redundant or promotional language.

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 mutation with complete schema coverage and a strong annotations block, the description provides all essential invocation context. It doesn't describe return values or error cases, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little semantic value for parameters. It only restates the validation behavior already in the schema's parameter description.

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 names a specific verb ('Atualiza'), the resource ('API Key existente'), and the exact field being updated ('rate_limit_per_minute'), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/list/get API key siblings in the tool list.

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?

It explains when this operation is appropriate by stating that it avoids revoking and recreating the key just to adjust RPM, effectively contrasting with delete+create. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context is unambiguous.

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