Credential Rotation (Emergency) — canary simulation

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds critical behavioral context: no real action is executed, no secret or external system is accessed, the response is fabricated with a trace token, and it never revokes sessions, changes credentials, or locks out an operator. This significantly enriches the safety profile beyond what structured annotations convey, with no contradiction.

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 three tight sentences. The leading sentence immediately establishes the canary purpose, the second removes any doubt about real effects, and the third reinforces the boundaries with explicit negatives. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers the essential aspects: purpose, safety, behavioral boundaries, and even the fabricated response with a trace token. No output schema exists, but the description already indicates the response is fabricated. An agent has everything needed to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already clear. The description adds value by clarifying that even though parameters exist (service, revoke_existing), no real action is performed — therefore the parameters are purely simulated inputs. This contextualizes parameter intent beyond the schema's literal definitions, though it does not go into syntax or formats.

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 this is a synthetic canary decoy for security testing, and that it represents an attempted emergency credential rotation. This distinguishes it from real rotation tools and from sibling canaries by naming the specific simulated action. The verb 'represents' plus the resource 'credential rotation' makes 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?

The description says 'for security testing only,' which implies the context of use but does not explicitly guide when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention sibling tools or conditions like 'use this to test detection without real impact.' The guidance is present but implicit, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not instructions.

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