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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the action and the 1-credit cost; it does not disclose side effects like whether the current circuit is invalidated, whether the operation is reversible, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the action, object, and cost with zero wasted words. It is concise and clear.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It omits any mention of the api_key parameter, fails to explain behavior around the existing session, and provides no information about expected results or side effects. This is under-specified for a tool with these contextual gaps.

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 sole parameter api_key is entirely undocumented: schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot infer the parameter's purpose, format, or whether it needs to be provided, despite it being optional.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Rotate') and resource ('fresh Tor circuit/identity'), which clearly states what the tool does. This action is also distinct from the sibling tools (styx_fetch, styx_order, etc.), allowing an agent to differentiate it without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'Rotate to a fresh Tor circuit/identity' implies a use case but does not provide routing context or compare with sibling tools.

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