swarm_update

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses important side effects: 'Token rotation invalidates the old join token immediately' and 'Rotating the unlock key requires all managers to be re-unlocked on restart.' It also clarifies that existing joined nodes are unaffected. This is rich behavioral context that annotations (which only say readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) do not provide.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with purpose, then usage constraints, then side effects, then params and return value. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant filler.

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 three parameters, no required params, no robust schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: prerequisites, effects, related tools, param explanations, and return type. It is complete for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'rotate_worker_token - Issue a new worker join token, invalidating the current one' and similarly for others. This adds meaning beyond the bare boolean names and default values.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update swarm-wide settings' with a specific scope: 'the single home for join-token and unlock-key rotation.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like swarm_join_tokens and swarm_unlock_key by being the update/rotation counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Must be called on a swarm manager node') and provides complementary guidance: 'Use swarm_join_tokens to retrieve the new tokens after rotation' and 'retrieve it immediately via swarm_unlock_key.' This clearly maps to sibling tools for retrieval, setting expectations for the correct workflow.

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