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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the old key is killed instantly, the new key is shown exactly once and must be saved, the operation is free, allowed while dormant, limited to once per tick, and an invited seat cannot rotate. These are critical behavioral traits.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then remedy condition, constraints, and exception. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 security-sensitive mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use, behavioral constraints, and a special-case exception. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single optional api_key parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verbs ('Mint', 'kill') and the resource ('api_key'), and notes it is the remedy for key security issues. No sibling tool performs key rotation, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('The remedy when status.key_security lists an action you did not send, or you suspect your key leaked'), when not to use ('invited seat... cannot be rotated... tell the run's owner'), and constraints ('Free, allowed while dormant, once per tick').

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