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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description makes that concrete by stating the old address is invalidated. It also discloses a genuinely valuable behavioral trait not in the annotations: the webhook Bearer secret is returned only once and must be stored outside the conversation. It stops short of covering permissions, reversibility of a mistaken rotation, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentences: purpose, effect, secret handling, and form prerequisites, with no filler. The one-time-secret warning is properly prominent, though the final sentence about form.origins and field keys adds noise given those fields are absent from the schema.

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 one-parameter rotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important consequences well: old endpoint death and one-time secret exposure. It is incomplete in that it implies configuration steps that the schema cannot express, leaving the agent unsure how to satisfy the external-form requirement.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is never explained in the description, so no meaning is added for it. Worse, the description references 'form.origins' and field keys as required for external forms, but the input schema accepts only 'id' with additionalProperties=false, so the agent is told about parameters that cannot be supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create or regenerate the endpoint address of a workflow form/webhook, and it adds the key effect that the old address is invalidated. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling rotate_form_webhook_secret, which an agent could easily confuse it with given the naming overlap.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Créer ou régénérer' (create or regenerate), so the agent can infer this is for setting up or replacing an endpoint rather than inspecting one. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over rotate_form_webhook_secret or get_flow_endpoint, and no prerequisites or preconditions are listed.

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