Webhook Rotate Secret

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

Annotations only give the generic mutating profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the two facts that actually govern correct invocation: the secret is returned exactly once and the old secret is invalidated immediately, which is essential given non-idempotency.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operational consequence. Every clause carries information an agent 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the critical return-behavior note (secret shown exactly once) and the side effect (immediate invalidation), while annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.

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 (webhookId, organizationId) are documented with cross-references to webhook_list and organization_list. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource: generating a new signing secret for a webhook. The action is unambiguous against siblings like webhook_update or webhook_create, which operate on other webhook fields rather than credentials.

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?

Usage is implied by the consequence stated ('the previous secret stops validating immediately'), which signals this is a credential-rotation operation, but the description never says when to rotate or what alternative exists. No explicit when-to-use or 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.