rotation_execute

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: it may restart systems, requires approval, never signs with a cold key, and is disabled in SAFE. This goes well beyond what annotations alone 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key constraints. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers operational constraints and safety policies well, but omits parameter semantics and any indication of success/failure response. For a complex operation with one required parameter, this leaves the agent without enough 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?

The schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. With only one parameter, the agent has no guidance on what identifier to provide, which is a significant gap given no supporting schema descriptions.

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 action ('restart') and the resources ('live BP and Mithril'), distinguishing it from the status/planning sibling tools. It also adds immediate constraints (disabled in SAFE, approval requirements), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit conditionals for when the tool can be used (requires human approval or autonomous policy, disabled in SAFE). It implies it is the execution counterpart to rotation_plan, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use after rotation_plan' or 'not for planning/status checks'.

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