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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits including the destructive nature ('invalidates the previous password'), the specific side effects ('breaks any existing package manager configuration'), and the return format ('returns a new one with ready-to-use configuration commands'). This covers mutation behavior and output characteristics comprehensively.

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 consists of three dense sentences without filler. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second describes behavioral outcomes, and the third provides critical usage guardrails. Every clause delivers essential information about operation semantics or safety constraints.

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 single-parameter credential rotation tool without output schema, the description comprehensively covers operation purpose, destructive side effects, return value characteristics, and precise usage conditions. No additional description elements are necessary given the tool's focused scope.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with the firewall_id parameter fully documented as 'Firewall public ID.' Since the schema is self-explanatory and complete, the description appropriately focuses on behavioral semantics rather than repeating parameter documentation, meeting the baseline for high coverage schemas.

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 specific verbs 'Roll (regenerate)' and identifies the exact resource 'personal proxy credential for a firewall.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like `get_proxy_config` (retrieval) and `create_service_credential` (service vs personal credentials) by specifying the credential type and destructive regeneration action.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Only call this when the user explicitly needs new credentials') and clear warnings about negative consequences ('it will break any existing package manager configuration'). It explicitly states the prerequisite condition requiring explicit user intent.

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