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

Beyond the destructive and non-idempotent annotations, it warns that the new token is shown only once and must be stored immediately. It also precisely discloses the old token's invalidation behavior, including that the default grace period of zero revokes it immediately.

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 compact and front-loads the most critical warning about one-time token visibility. Invalidation timing and the REST route follow without filler or redundant explanation.

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 sensitive mutation with no output schema, it supplies the essential result-handling warning and old-token lifecycle behavior, while the schema covers identification and authentication. Explicit selection guidance versus rotate_secret and advice on choosing a grace period would make it more complete.

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 documents job_id and management_token but leaves grace_sec without a description. The description compensates directly by explaining that grace_sec controls how long the old token remains valid and that its default of 0 means immediate invalidation.

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?

Together with the name and title, the description clearly concerns replacing a job's management token: a new token is issued and the old one stops working. It does not explicitly differentiate this operation from the sibling rotate_secret tool.

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 rotation context implies using the tool when a management token must be replaced, and the grace-period detail helps inform that decision. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisite, or comparison with rotate_secret.

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