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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds two useful pieces of context: it requires authentication, and the replacement URL is returned 'once' – implying the new token cannot be retrieved again. It still doesn't state that the old token is invalidated or whether the action is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key behavior ('rotating an ingest token') and the notable 'returned once' constraint front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the mutation's risk.

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 mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description covers the return-once behavior and auth requirement but omits invalidation of the prior token, required permissions/scopes, and any error or rate-limit context.

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 parameter sourceId has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about what sourceId refers to (a source identifier) or its format, so the agent gets only the bare name. With no schema-level documentation and no compensating text, this leaves the parameter underspecified.

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 ('rotating an ingest token') and distinguishes itself from the sibling rotate_endpoint_secret by specifying 'ingest token' and the 'replacement URL' return. Clear enough for an agent to select it, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 only says what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like rotate_endpoint_secret, nor any exclusions or preconditions (e.g., when rotation is warranted). Usage is left entirely to inference.

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