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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It fully discloses critical behavioral facts: the secret is returned exactly once, deliveries immediately switch to the new secret, and receivers still using the old secret will get 401s. This is exemplary transparency for a security-sensitive mutation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, immediate action, and post-condition/use case. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded with the main action.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers all essential context: the one-time return behavior, the timing of the switch, the impact on receivers, and the recommended use cases. Nothing important is left out.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (org_slug, webhook_id; webhook_id even references list_webhooks). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action: mint a fresh signing secret for a webhook. It uses specific, action-oriented verbs and identifies the resource (webhook) and the operation (rotation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_webhook or list_webhooks.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool ('after a suspected leak or as part of routine rotation hygiene') and explains the required follow-up action (copy the new secret to the receiver). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the provided context is strong.

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