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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the mutation's real consequence — the previous token is invalidated — and the shape of the response (new claim_url and claim_token). It also spells out two distinct authorization paths, management_token vs session_token, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the effect, then the authorization requirement — no filler. It is slightly jargon-heavy ('supersede', 'remint') but every clause carries operational information.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the state change, the returned values, and the auth options, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: management_token may be the raw claim token 'even one about to be superseded,' and session_token only works when the session originally requested the claim or minted the passport. That constraint is not present in the schema text.

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 ('rotates the claim token') and states the exact effect: the old token stops working and a new claim_url/claim_token are returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling action of reminting a passport, so an agent can separate this tool from issue_agent_passport without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition (claim link lost, expired, or already consumed for a still-unclaimed passport) and an explicit exclusion ('do not remint the passport instead'), plus the reason reminting fails to recover a lost link. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative all in one place.

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