Create/Rotate Tenant Credentials

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: it is an ADMIN operation, the API key is encrypted at rest, and omitting the key degrades to a metadata-only update. It does not explain the create-vs-rotate decision or whether repeated calls with the same key are safe, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. But the Args block largely duplicates a schema that already has 100% description coverage, so a meaningful share of the text earns no place; only the encryption and omission clauses pull weight.

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 6 parameters, one required, no output schema, the description covers the purpose, admin requirement, parameter behavior, and the return value ('rotated credential metadata'). Missing are failure modes (unknown tenant, invalid key) and whether the previous credential is invalidated on rotation, which is relevant for a non-idempotent secret-mutating tool.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by adding semantics the schema lacks, namely that blindpay_api_key is stored encrypted and that its absence changes behavior rather than being a plain optional field. The other upstream metadata parameters are only restated, not elaborated.

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 first sentence names a specific verb pair (create/rotate) and a specific resource (upstream credential of a tenant), which cleanly separates it from the get_tenant_credentials and delete_tenant_credentials siblings. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

'ADMIN operation' flags a privilege requirement, and the note that omitting blindpay_api_key results in a metadata-only update hints at a second usage mode. However, it never states when to choose this over ashar_get_tenant_credentials or ashar_provision_test_tenant, nor any preconditions or exclusions beyond the admin flag.

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