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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the operational traits that matter: the old secret stays valid for 24 hours to allow consumer cutover, an explicit approval/confirmed gate exists, and writes are never auto-retried. These are exactly the details an agent needs before triggering an irreversible credential change.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediate effect, then the grace period, then the approval gate. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety, approval, and the credential transition window. The only gap is the return shape (whether the new secret is returned in the response), which an agent must guess.

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 50% and the two parameters (nested path.id and confirmed) already carry their own descriptions with an example ID. The description restates that confirmed relates to approval but adds no new syntax or semantics, and it never explains the nested `path.id` wrapper. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rotate webhook secret. Issue a new signing secret'), then defines the exact effect (a new secret replaces the old). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dealmachine_patch_webhooks_id (updating webhook config) or dealmachine_webhook_create.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition for invocation: user approval is required and confirmed=true must be set before changes or credit use. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the patch/delete webhook siblings, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing, but the gating condition is unambiguous.

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