rotate_agent_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses atomicity, inheritance of label/permissions, the fact that the new plaintext key is returned only once, and the developer key requirement. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a security-sensitive mutation.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence explains what it does, the second highlights the return value caveat, and the third gives usage contexts. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral expectations: atomic operation, result (new key returned once), and prerequisites (developer key). It doesn't detail failure cases or post-conditions, but this is sufficient for a well-scoped rotation tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond noting the 'label' can be overridden, which is already implied by the schema's optional label. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Atomically revoke an agent key and mint its replacement.' This uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (agent key), and distinguishes it from siblings like revoke_agent_key and create_agent_key by explicitly describing the combined rotate operation.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use on suspected leak or on a rotation schedule.' It also mentions auth requirements ('Requires a developer key'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for permanent revocation use revoke_agent_key). This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, fitting a 4.

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