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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses the side effect ("Existing signed sessions end"), the security boundary ("key goes to the trusted local helper only"), and a return behavior ("Returns a local CLI command when a secret is involved") despite no output schema. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and adds value without contradicting any hint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries a distinct piece of information (purpose, consequence, key destination, return behavior). No filler.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile, and the description covers the main side effect and partial return behavior. However, for a 5-param mutation it omits auth/permission requirements and the meaning of expected_version and idempotency_key, leaving notable 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?

Schema coverage is only 60%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters (company, environment, installation, expected_version, idempotency_key). With schema doing part of the work but a 40% gap, the description fails to compensate by explaining the optimistic-concurrency expected_version or idempotency semantics.

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+resource ("Issue a new signing key") that is clearly distinct from sibling installations_create/update/list actions. It doesn't name a sibling to differentiate from, but the rotation action is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative named from the large sibling set. Usage is only implied by the destructive consequence "Existing signed sessions end," which lets an agent infer this is a deliberate rotation rather than a routine edit.

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