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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the returned secret is displayed exactly once and cannot be retrieved again, and the old secret remains valid for a 24-hour grace window. The owner-only restriction is also disclosed, which annotations do not capture. This is exactly the irreversible, time-sensitive 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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The one-time visibility of the secret is front-loaded, followed by the operational deadline and the permission gate, in the order an agent would act on them.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, the migration window, and authorization. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is left unstated.

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 single integration_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its uuid format and its source (list_integrations). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does all the work and the baseline 3 applies.

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: giving an integration a new secret, and adds the key scope fact that it is shown only once. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling create_login_secret by naming the integration as the target, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operational context: rotate the secret, deploy the new value on the server within 24 hours, and owner-only permission is required. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. create_login_secret, update_integration) or stating when not to call it.

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