rotate_oauth_client_secret

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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond the annotations: the old secret stops working immediately, the new secret is shown only once, already-issued tokens remain valid, and rotating twice breaks services twice. It also states required permissions (clients:write scope, admin capability), adding significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence carries essential warning or operational detail. The most critical fact (old secret stops working immediately) is front-loaded, and the structure logically walks through the remediation workflow: what it does, what to check first, what to know about the new secret, and what does not change.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It covers prerequisites, consequences, one-time retrieval limitation, token behavior, and the alternative tool for refresh tokens. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining that 'id' is the client's record id from list_oauth_clients. This gives the agent the exact source for the parameter value, which the raw schema does not.

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 states a specific action ('Issue a NEW secret') on a specific resource ('an API client'), and immediately clarifies the critical consequence ('THE OLD ONE STOPS WORKING IMMEDIATELY'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_oauth_client, deactivate_oauth_client, and revoke_refresh_token.

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 explicitly identifies this as 'the remediation tool for a leaked secret' and advises the agent to 'Know what uses the client before rotating it, and have somewhere to put the new secret first.' It also names the alternative tool, revoke_refresh_token, for refresh-token handling, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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