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

Annotations declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description meaningfully extends that by clarifying that turning Maintain off neither deletes nor revokes anything already cloned and only stops future repeat get_scaffold access after the current billing period. It does not disclose reversibility of key rotation or permission requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the scoping and consequence caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is long and mixes the maintain semantics with billing nuance.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is NOT affected, and the account scoping of projectid. Missing only the return shape and whether rotation can be undone.

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 67%, and the description supplies meaning for the one undocumented parameter: 'maintain' is explained as turning Maintain on/off. It also confirms projectid is account-scoped, matching the schema. No syntax or defaults are added beyond that.

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 specific verbs (turns Maintain on/off, rotates project key) and the resource (one of this account's projects), which is enough to separate it from sibling get_projects and get_scaffold. The term 'Maintain' is product-specific jargon that an agent must infer, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call it to toggle Maintain or rotate a key, and the effect of turning Maintain off is explained. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no guidance on pairing with verify_scaffold or purchase_scaffold, and no named alternative.

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