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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the previous secret keeps signing for 24 h, the `webhook-signature` header carries two `v1,…` parts during that window, and the receiver may accept either. This is exactly the migration mechanism an agent needs and annotations do not express. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the auth need, then the rollover mechanics. Four sentences, all relevant; the header-format sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining the dual-signature contract.

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 no output schema and no annotations on the security mechanism, the description covers the grace period and header format well. It omits how/where the caller obtains the newly generated secret, which is the one piece a rotation caller would need next.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully notes the auth requirement (edm_… token), but there are no parameters for it to add semantics to.

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 and resource: rotating the secret that signs webhooks. No sibling tool touches webhook secrets, so there is nothing for it to be confused with; an agent immediately knows what this does.

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?

Gives clear context for calling it: the auth prerequisite (edm_… token) and the operational rationale (rotate without a failure window). No alternatives exist to route against, so the absence of exclusions is not a real gap, but it never states when NOT to rotate.

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