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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, meaning the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: the old key is destroyed, the new key is displayed exactly once, and MCP never stores it — critical details that shape how the agent must handle the response. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what happens to existing sessions using the old key.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the destructive warning, then the irreversibility of the returned secret. No filler and nothing important buried.

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?

It covers the destructive and one-time-display semantics well, which is the hardest part of this tool, and no output schema exists so return values need not be described. But for a 3-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema coverage, leaving all parameter meanings unexplained and omitting permission/prerequisite details leaves the agent guessing at call construction.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains none of the three required parameters. Most importantly it never clarifies whether 'project_key' is the current key being authorized for rotation or a caller-supplied replacement, nor what 'confirm_rotate' must be set to — the phrase 'require explicit confirmation' only obliquely hints at the boolean.

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 the Project Workspace capability key'), which is unambiguous and unique among the siblings — no other workspace_* tool performs rotation or touches the capability key. An agent can tell immediately what this does and that it is not the same as workspace_create_project or workspace_describe.

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 states a precondition ('require explicit confirmation') and flags the destructive outcome, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it gives no guidance on when rotation should be performed versus other remediation paths, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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