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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: the immediate invalidation of the old token and the requirement to store the new token in MCP Authorization, plus a security warning about not pasting it in chat. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the full impact.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the action ('Replace the agent token') and then providing critical side effects and handling instructions in a few short sentences. Every sentence carries necessary information without any fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the action, the immediate effect, and the required post-step (saving to MCP Authorization). It omits potential error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already documents the single optional token parameter with a clear description (used if not sent as the Authorization header). The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, 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 states a specific verb ('Replace') with a clear resource ('agent token'), and immediately distinguishes its effect: the previous token stops working instantly. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like recover_token or disconnect_agent without needing to inspect them.

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 provides clear operational guidance: save the new token in MCP Authorization and avoid pasting it in chat. It does not explicitly list when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the phrase 'previous token stops working' implies a rotation use-case, and no sibling directly overlaps with this action.

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