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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the old token is killed, every previously shared management link dies, and the new token is returned only once. It also flags the hidden cost of rotating a merely misplaced token, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

The description is about 80 words across three sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Some phrasing is elaborate, but every sentence carries operational meaning and the warning about consequences earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, two usage modes, one-time output, and the main side effect, which is sufficient for a two-parameter tool with no output schema. The only missing details, like the dropId format, are already available in the input schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the text compensates by explaining that the old token corresponds to managementToken and that recovery can happen via the connected account when the token is lost. It implies that managementToken is optional for recovery, though it does not explicitly name dropId or map each parameter.

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 names a specific operation: mint a new management token and kill the old one, and it distinguishes the two modes (rotation with the old token, recovery with a connected account). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like secret_set/secret_delete or settings updates.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: lost or leaked token, with rotation vs recovery spelled out. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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