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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical destructive side effect: "The current key stops working immediately," which is a key behavior an agent must know before invoking the tool. It also clarifies the follow-up action "use the new one on later tool calls," providing more than minimal behavioral context, though it does not detail the response format or whether the old webhook_secret is also invalidated when not rotated.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the main action, notes the optional parameter, and then gives the crucial consequence and required follow-up. Every phrase carries meaningful information with no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation's core effect and the necessary next step after calling it. It does not explicitly state that the response will contain the new key and webhook_secret, but that is strongly implied by "use the new one on later tool calls." The missing return-format detail is minor given the low complexity and strong schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the purpose of both parameters. The description adds the optionality of webhook_secret rotation with "and optionally webhook_secret," but it does not explain the api_key parameter beyond what the schema already says. This matches the baseline expectation when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's action: "Issue a new api_key (and optionally webhook_secret)" with the specific consequence that the current key stops working. This is a specific verb plus resource, and it is distinct from the sibling tools like register_agent or get_agent because it focuses on rotation rather than creation or retrieval.

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 description implies usage context by explaining that the current key stops working immediately and that the new key should be used on later tool calls, but it does not explicitly state when to rotate versus when to rely on another tool such as register_agent. There is no direct comparison to alternatives or stated preconditions for rotation, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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