project_update_rotation

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

This is a mutation tool with no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'Update rotation configuration' and does not explain whether updates are partial or full, any permission requirements, reversibility, side effects, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, making it efficient in length. However, it is perhaps too minimal to convey necessary context, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain behavior and return values, but it does not. It fails to cover important operational details such as the effect on existing rotation counts, validation rules, or the response format. The tool's moderate complexity (nested config object) demands more context than this minimal description provides.

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 50% with only project_id described; rotation_config and its nested properties lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information, failing to explain what rotation_config fields mean or how they are applied. The descriptive parameter names help slightly, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented config object.

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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'rotation configuration' for a project. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_create and project_get by specifically targeting rotation settings.

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 usage through its purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention any alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites provided, making the usage context implied rather than explicitly guided.

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