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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that old keys remain valid during a grace window (critical for an agent deciding whether rotation is safe mid-flight) and that scope authority cannot be added. It stops short of saying who is authorized to rotate, whether the old key is revoked after the grace window, or whether the new key is returned only once.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the rationale. The closing clause about a running bot is a justification that actually earns its place by explaining the grace window.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essential behavior: what it mints, what it cannot do, and the old-key lifetime. Gaps remain around authorization requirements, post-grace-window revocation, and whether the new key value is returned, but these are moderate rather than blocking.

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 schema already states "Subset of your current scopes. Omit to keep the same set," so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema by emphasizing narrowing-only and the inability to add authority, which clarifies the enum's intent.

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 and resource ("Mint a fresh api key") plus the key constraint ("optionally NARROWING its scopes"). It also implicitly separates itself from escalate_scope and get_scope_challenge by naming them as the tools for adding authority.

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?

Explicitly states the negative case ("Cannot add authority") and names the exact alternative path (get_scope_challenge + escalate_scope) for the case this tool does not cover. An agent can route correctly without inference.

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