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

The description discloses the one-time return of the plaintext secret, which is important behavioral information not present in the annotations. However, it does not explicitly state that rotating invalidates the existing secret or that active clients using the old secret will be affected, which is a significant omission 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the most critical operational caveat ('returned once'), making it efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the output schema exists and there is only one parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. However, for a state-changing, non-idempotent operation, it lacks explicit disclosure of the side effect (invalidating the old secret) and any authorization or recovery notes, leaving the agent without full awareness of consequences.

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 only parameter, clientId, is already described as the 'Public OAuth client ID' in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles the 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 uses a specific verb ('Rotate') and resource ('an OAuth client's secret'), and adds the critical detail that the new plaintext secret is returned only once. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like oauth.clients.create or oauth.clients.get, and there is no other rotate sibling.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a secret is compromised or needs periodic rotation. The description does not mention any prerequisites, nor does it contrast with oauth.clients.create or oauth.clients.get, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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