rotate_agent_key

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the old key's invalidation timing, the current temporary behavior (never returns agent_key directly, returns claim_link), auth requirements, and specific HTTP error conditions. This goes beyond what structured fields could 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?

The description is structured into labeled sections (Auth, TEMPORARY, agent_id, Returns) and is front-loaded with the main purpose. While moderately long, each sentence serves a purpose, such as explaining auth or error behavior.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the response contains (claim_link and agent_key: None) and all error conditions (400, 404, 429). It also covers auth setup and the temporary change, making it contextually complete for this operation.

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 single parameter agent_id is only described as 'the agent whose bearer key to rotate,' which adds little beyond the schema's property name and type. Given 0% schema coverage and a single self-explanatory parameter, the description provides minimal value, so a score 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 opens with a specific action ('Request rotation of an agent's bearer key') and clarifies the effect (old key stops working). It also references claim_bearer_key, which distinguishes this tool from the claiming step and sibling tools like set_agent_key.

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?

Provides context on when rotation is appropriate (to invalidate a previous key) and explicitly points to claim_bearer_key for the next step. It also covers auth prerequisites and error cases. However, it does not explicitly contrast with set_agent_key or other siblings, so it's not a full usage guide.

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