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

The description discloses the key side effect: child tokens are invalidated. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and warns the agent of the operation's impact, though it does not detail irreversibility or authorization requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and states the consequence. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 lack of parameters, no output schema, and annotations that already establish mutability, the description covers the essential behavioral contract. It could mention when rotation is appropriate or what the caller receives afterward, but those are minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already fully documents this (empty properties, 100% coverage). The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly does not add redundant parameter details.

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 states a specific action (rotate) on a specific resource (bootstrap credential) with a concrete outcome (invalidate its child tokens). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like revoke_credential and exchange_token.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as revoke_credential, exchange_token, or delegate_authority. The agent must infer the intended context from the name alone.

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