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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two facts an agent cannot guess: the old secret is invalidated immediately (breaking existing consumers) and the new secret is shown only once (unrecoverable). Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, and the description adds the precise consequence.

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, no filler, with the core action first and the consequence/return semantics second. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers what breaks and what is returned. It could add one line on the operational follow-up (integrations must be updated with the new secret), which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

A single parameter with 100% schema coverage and a clear format hint ('wh_xxx'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the id, which is acceptable at this coverage level, hence 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-and-resource pair ('Rotate the webhook signing secret') that is unambiguous and distinguishable from secret-adjacent siblings like regenerate-api-key and reset-form-token by naming the resource. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting them, so 4 rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to rotate versus using update-webhook, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., needing the webhook to exist or admin scope). The purpose implies rotation is intentional, but the agent must infer all selection logic.

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