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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits the critical consequence of rotation — that the previous signing secret is invalidated and any existing webhook consumers must be reconfigured. It also says nothing about permissions or whether the new secret is returned.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification for a mutating tool.

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 destructive-style mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain whether the new secret is returned (essential for a rotation) and what happens to the old one. Neither is covered, leaving an agent without the information needed to call it safely.

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?

One required parameter (product_id) at 0% schema coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description only implies that the secret belongs to a product ('the product's ... secret'), which is the bare minimum and does not clarify the identifier format or scope.

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 (rotate) and resource (the product's fulfillment webhook signing secret), which is far more precise than a bare 'rotate secret'. It implicitly contrasts with the read-only sibling get_webhook_secret, but never names it or any other alternative explicitly.

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 no when-to-use guidance: no trigger condition (compromise, scheduled rotation), no prerequisite, and no pointer to get_webhook_secret for retrieving the current secret. It only restates the action.

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