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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description still adds substantial context beyond them: the old secret breaks immediately, the new secret needs a few seconds to propagate, a single 401 should be treated as delay and retried rather than re-rotated, and the call is refused if deploys are disabled for the connection.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what it does, when to invoke, the blast radius, the propagation/retry rule, and the refusal condition. Front-loaded with the action and contains no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the destructive side effect, the retry semantics, and the permission precondition. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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 workflowId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Generate a new secret for a deployed workflow's webhook trigger, redeploy it, and return the new secret.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like deploy_workflow, rollback_workflow, and call_deployed_workflow, so an agent can pick it out 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?

It gives an explicit gate — 'only do it when the user asks or needs the secret to call the webhook themselves' — and a hard precondition ('Refused if the owner turned off deploys'). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for obtaining a secret without rotating, so a 4 rather than 5.

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