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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior: the previous secret remains valid for 24 hours, allowing rotation without a failure window. This goes beyond the basic mutation implied by 'Troca' and is valuable for safe invocation.

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 sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action, states the requirement, and follows with the important 24-hour grace-period behavior. Every word adds value.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the action, the prerequisite, and the grace-period behavior. It does not explain where the edm_… token comes from or what happens after 24 hours, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and full schema description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds useful context by mentioning the required edm_… token, which an agent must provide through authentication rather than a parameter.

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 ('Troca') and resource ('o segredo que assina os webhooks') to state exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on alerts, purchases, and credential queries rather than webhook secret rotation.

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 clear operational context: it is used to rotate the webhook signing secret and requires an edm_… token. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to offer the same functionality, so the absence of exclusion guidance is not a major gap.

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