rotate_database_password

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent), the description discloses the operationally critical consequence that the old password stops working and names the two required environment gates, WISP_ALLOW_DATABASES and WISP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE. That is precisely the pre-call context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the action comes first, then the usage constraint and prerequisites. Every clause carries information the caller needs.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation the safety and prerequisite picture is complete, but with no output schema the description never says whether the new password is returned in the response or must be fetched elsewhere. That is the one gap an agent needs closed before calling.

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 100% and both parameters (server_id, database_id) are documented in-schema, including the WISP_SERVER_ID default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a new password for an existing database') with an explicit scope qualifier ('existing'). It is unambiguously distinct from create_database, delete_database, and update_server in the sibling list.

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?

'Use only for an explicit credential rotation because the old password stops working' gives a clear triggering condition and an implicit exclusion (don't use it for routine setup or probing). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for related tasks, so it falls just short of a 5.

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