rotate_secret

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: mutates keyring (one 'write' audit event), makes outbound network requests, and describes the return JSON including the rotated flag. No contradictions.

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?

Single paragraph with front-loaded purpose and usage, then behavior. Concise but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points for side effects).

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains behavior and return value. It could elaborate on the JSON fields (e.g., newValue content) but remains complete enough for competent use.

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 has 100% coverage so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema, e.g., explaining provider auto-detection and scope implications, earning an extra point.

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?

Clearly states the tool's action: 'Ask the upstream provider to issue a fresh credential for this secret and store the new value back into the keyring.' It distinguishes between siblings by explicitly naming generate_secret and agent_scan --autoRotate for alternative use cases.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (secret expiring, leaked, or scheduled rotation) and when not to (prefer generate_secret or agent_scan for other scenarios). This directly helps the agent choose the correct tool.

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