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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial specifics of what is destroyed ('Revokes the current keys'), the environment affected ('production'), and the authorization requirement ('Admin only'). It does not say whether revocation is immediate or whether replacement credentials are returned, which is the one meaningful behavioral gap.

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, each carrying distinct information: action, destructive effect, authorization gate. The destructive effect is front-loaded ahead of the admin note, and there is 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the definition covers action, blast radius, and auth. The only omission is whether the caller receives new credentials or must fetch them separately, which an agent would reasonably want to know.

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%, with both 'service' and 'token' fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that the service is a production one and that admin rights are needed, which mildly reinforces the token parameter but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Rotate a production service's credentials') and the immediate effect ('Revokes the current keys'), which separates it from read-only siblings like get_secret and list_secrets. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops 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?

'Admin only' and 'production service' give the reader a prerequisite and a scope condition, implying when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to rotate versus merely reading credentials with get_secret, and no stated preconditions beyond admin rights.

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