webhook_rotate_secret

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

The description explicitly states that the old secret is invalidated, which is a destructive side effect. However, there are no annotations to rely on, and the description omits other behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the new secret is returned.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main effect but lacks parameter details and usage context. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation for the two parameters ('user_id' and 'subscription_id'). The meaning of 'user_id' (optional, default '') is unclear, and 'subscription_id' is not explicitly linked to the described action.

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 ('Issue a new signing secret') and the resource ('for a subscription'), and notes the side effect ('invalidates the old one'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'settings.rotate_secret', which may have a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'settings.rotate_secret', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing subscription) or typical use cases.

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