generate_client_secret

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), which lowers the bar. However, the critical behavior for a secret-rotation tool is not disclosed: whether the existing client secret is invalidated by this call, whether the new secret is returned in the response, and what the idempotentHint=true actually means here (does a repeat call return the same secret?). The description only repeats the HTTP verb and path.

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?

Very short, which is good, but 'Generate new client secret' followed by 'Generate and get new client secret' is pure duplication. The verbatim reiteration spends a whole second sentence on zero new 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (the new secret) and what happens to the old one; neither is covered. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the core effect of the call is left unexplained.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (x-trace-id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it and the description adds nothing on parameters. Baseline 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?

The verb 'generate' plus resource 'client secret' is specific, and the endpoint PUT /v1/users/client/secret pins down the scope to the current user's client. But the second sentence merely restates the first, and nothing distinguishes this from neighbours such as create_secret, retrieve_secret, generate_sso_token or regenerate_object_storage_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of what condition warrants rotating a client secret, and no pointer to any alternative tool. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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