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

The description discloses a key behavioral detail: rotation returns a replacement once. It does not state whether revoking invalidates the current credential or whether rotating also invalidates the previous one, but the core side effect is mentioned.

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, compact sentence that captures the tool's full purpose and the most important behavioral note without any extraneous content.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names all actions and notes the rotation behavior. It does not specify what 'inspect' returns, but this is not essential for basic usage.

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 single parameter 'action' has an enum, and the description explicitly names all three actions: inspect, rotate, and revoke. This adds enough meaning to the enum values, though there are no per-parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool's purpose: inspect, rotate, or revoke the current bearer credential. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on notes, tasks, namespaces, or other resources.

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 when to use the tool (when managing the current bearer credential) but does not explicitly state when alternatives would be preferable or provide situational guidance. It is adequate but not highly instructive.

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