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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the concrete downstream consequence — existing embed codes break until manually updated — which is exactly the kind of impact context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether the previous token can be recovered or reverted.

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 sentences, sixteen words total, with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately following. Nothing repeats the title or restates the schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what breaks and who is affected. It leaves minor gaps around reversibility and whether the new token is returned in the response, but the agent has enough to call it correctly and warn the user.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Form ID (frm_xxx)'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already does the work — baseline 3.

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 ('Rotate') and resource ('public form token'), which no sibling tool performs — the closest analogue, reset-webhook-secret, acts on a different resource. An agent can distinguish this from update-form, publish-form, or delete-form without opening the schema.

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 second sentence makes the operational context clear: rotation invalidates existing embed codes, so the agent knows this is a last-resort action taken when a token is compromised or leaked. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., update-form to change form settings) or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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