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

Though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, the description adds rich specifics: the old credential is immediately invalidated, the new one is shown only once, and there is no recovery. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before triggering a destructive rotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediate consequence. Every clause earns its place by warning about the one-shot return and lack of recovery.

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 destructive one-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical risk (irreversible invalidation, one-time reveal). It could mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the core completeness is strong.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param load; however, the single required 'credential' parameter is not explained at all. It likely refers to the current credential to rotate, but that is inferred, not stated. Baseline 3 for a one-param tool with no description coverage is a stretch but the purpose of the arg can be reasonably guessed.

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?

States a specific verb (rotate/mint) and resource (credential) and distinguishes from siblings like register_agent or check_claim. An agent immediately knows this replaces credentials rather than validating them.

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?

Implied usage is clear (when you need a new credential) but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative. Siblings like register_agent exist but are never mentioned. Minimum viable.

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