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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that visit history is preserved and old credentials are revoked, which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs beyond the annotation hints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key operation and its two main effects are stated immediately.

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 identity-rotation tool with no output schema, the description says enough about preserved history and revoked credentials, but it does not indicate what the tool returns or whether new credentials are issued. That is an important gap for an agent invoking a credential-replacement operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the sensitive bearer and returning-guest credential semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: replacing a private identity and session, with clarifying effects on visit history and old credentials. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as revoke_sessions or check_in.

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 implies the rotation scenario but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like revoke_sessions, check_in, or check_out. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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