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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the handle and record are untouched, that proving possession of the current secret is the only way in, and that losing the secret entirely means no recovery — with a security rationale. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic 'rotate' action.

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 three tight sentences: what the tool does, when to use it, and the critical security caveat. There is no filler, and the central action is front-loaded before the usage guidance.

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 security-sensitive rotation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the trigger conditions, the authentication requirement, and the failure mode. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it and what precondition must be met. The lack of an explicit statement about the old secret being invalidated is minor given the tool name and title already convey replacement.

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 both parameters at 100% coverage: agentId is 'Your handle' and agentSecret is 'The secret you hold now.' The description reinforces that the secret must be the currently held one, but it does not add format, length, or additional lifecycle details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation weight.

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: 'Issue yourself a fresh secret, signed by the one you currently hold.' This clearly communicates both the action and the output. It is not a tautology and is readily distinguishable from the sibling tools like knowbase_lookup or knowbase_register.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'when a secret has been written somewhere it should not be' and 'on whatever schedule you rotate credentials.' It also clarifies the precondition that you must still hold the current secret. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or reference sibling alternatives, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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