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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the key side effect: rotating revokes the ability to create new monitors while leaving existing monitors unaffected. It lacks explicit auth/permission details but covers the primary destructive/behavioral aspect well.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, but it repeats the same idea twice: 'Existing ones keep working' and 'Monitors already created keep working'. This redundancy means not every sentence earns its place, though the overall length is acceptable.

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 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the behavioral outcome but leaves the guest_token parameter completely unexplained. It also does not mention prerequisites, return values, or repeated-call behavior, so an agent may not be fully equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter guest_token, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the parameter name and type, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Rotates the ingest key') and specifies the scope and consequences: the previous key stops creating monitors while existing monitors keep working. This distinguishes it from related tools like ingest_key or status_feed_rotate by describing the unique effect of rotation.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to rotate the ingest key and revoke creation capability without disrupting existing monitors. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the choice mostly to inference.

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