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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses irreversibility, the permanent invalidation of the old key, and a non-obvious consequence—that signing in again via GitHub/Google/Microsoft/Clio will no longer recover the account. It also names the required user confirmation, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the immediate permanent-invalidation effect, followed by the critical recovery caveat and the precise usage condition. No sentence is redundant.

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-parameter, no-output, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers the action, the destructive scope, the required confirmation, and the non-obvious recovery side effect. It does not mention any rate limits or what the returned new key looks like, but a return value is implied ('save the new key themselves'), so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 'confirm' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the const true constraint and the warning text. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement but adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Issues') and resource ('brand-new API key') and its destructiveness ('permanently invalidates the current one'). It is clearly distinct from all siblings, which concern entirely different resources (claims, scans, watches, orgs).

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 condition for use ('only use this when the caller has explicitly confirmed...') and excludes vague or ambiguous requests via the schema. A concrete trigger ('they suspect the current key leaked') is provided, leaving nothing to inference.

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