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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is destructive/irreversible ('old token stops working immediately') and that the new secret is returned exactly once and cannot be retrieved later. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens on failure, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the two facts that affect invocation safety. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the structured fields.

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 an unannotated, output-schema-less mutation tool the description covers the most important hazards (immediate invalidation, one-time secret display), but it leaves the operationId parameter and any auth/permission context unexplained, so an agent still has gaps before calling it confidently.

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 must compensate. It clarifies workspaceToken as the token being replaced, but says nothing about operationId, which for a mutating rotate call is likely an idempotency or tracing key — a significant unexplained parameter for an agent to fill blindly.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Rotate a workspace API token') and clarifies the semantics of rotation by saying the replacement is shown once and the old token stops working immediately, which implicitly separates it from workspace_revoke. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 current token is required' gives a prerequisite for invoking the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to rotate versus revoke or create a workspace, and no statement of when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the transactional semantics.

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