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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the specific consequence that annotations cannot convey: anything still holding the old password is immediately cut off. That is the concrete blast radius an agent needs. It does not say whether the change can be rolled back or how long cut-off clients stay broken, which keeps it below 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 short sentences, zero filler, and the irreversible effect is stated before the precondition. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, no-output-schema, destructive tool, the description covers what it does, what it breaks, and the one prerequisite. The only meaningful omission is reversibility/rollback, which matters for an irreversible cutover but is not strictly required to invoke correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including where to obtain the value ('from list_services'). The description adds no further meaning about the id, which is acceptable given the schema already carries it; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete action and effect: promoting the new password to the only valid credential. It reads clearly as the commit step of a rotation, but never uses the words 'database' or 'rotation' and never names rotate_database_password, so the agent must infer the pairing from the title and sibling list rather than the prose.

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?

It gives a real precondition — 'Confirm the apps were updated first' — which is exactly the when-to-use gate an agent needs before an irreversible commit. It stops short of explicitly routing to rotate_database_password as the required prior step, so the sequencing is implied rather than spelled out.

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