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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that – submitted values are write-only and never returned – but says nothing about whether the previous secret value is invalidated or destroyed by rotation.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the scope statement comes first and the behavioral caveat second.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a destructive rotation with two undocumented required parameters and a nested environment map, the description leaves too much unspecified to call it complete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The nested 'values' object with dev/test/prod keys is particularly opaque: nothing explains whether all environments must be supplied, whether partial rotation is allowed, or how 'name' maps to an existing secret.

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 ('workspace secret') with a scope qualifier ('one'), which cleanly separates it from secret_create and secret_deactivate. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it falls short of a 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 create a new secret or deactivate one, nor any stated prerequisites (permissions, whether the secret must exist first). The agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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