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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by disclosing the key irreversible consequence: the old token stops working immediately. It also tells the agent what to do with the result (save the new token). It omits auth/permission prerequisites and rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the critical warning ('old one stops working immediately'), followed by the follow-up instruction. Zero wasted words.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and for a zero-parameter tool the description covers the essential outcome (new token, immediate invalidation of the old) and post-call handling. It leaves auth requirements unspecified, keeping it short of 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add beyond confirming there is no input to supply.

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+resource pair: replacing the caller's own agent token with a new one. It is unambiguous and clearly separable from siblings like agents.revoke or console.signin.

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?

The description never says when an agent should rotate its token versus authenticate or revoke, nor any prerequisite triggering rotation. Usage is only inferred from the name, matching the calibration case with no when-to-use guidance.

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