ecp_git_webhook_rotate_secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key side effect ('invalidates the old value'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention the need for an explicit confirmation, the fact that a new secret will be generated (and how that new secret is surfaced to the agent/user), or any other possible operational consequences.

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 front-loads the main action and the primary behavioral effect. It does not waste words, though it could be expanded slightly to hint at the confirm requirement without hurting conciseness.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a bare parameter schema, the description leaves important gaps: the purpose of 'confirm', what the tool returns (e.g., the new secret), and what happens if the app has no webhook. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's contract from the provided description and schema alone.

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 description only hints at 'app_id' by referring to 'an app', but does not clarify its nature or format. The 'confirm' parameter — a boolean const true — is completely unexplained, leaving unstated that the user must explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates for app_id but fails on confirm.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rotate') and names a precise resource ('app's deploy-webhook secret') with a clear effect ('invalidates the old one'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecp_git_webhook_create, ecp_git_webhook_update, and ecp_git_webhook_delete, although it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose rotation over updating or deleting a webhook, or any situational triggers. There are no explicit use-case conditions or exclusions, so the agent must infer the selection from the name and prior knowledge.

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