swarm_update

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses critical side effects: token rotation immediately invalidates old tokens, existing joined nodes are unaffected, and unlock key rotation requires all managers to be re-unlocked on restart. It also notes the manager-node prerequisite. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, followed by essential context and side effects, then a concise list of args and return type. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (three booleans) and the description covers all necessary operational context: manager-node requirement, what happens after rotation, how to retrieve new credentials, and the return value. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for the three boolean parameters, but the description fully explains each: rotate_worker_token, rotate_manager_token, and rotate_manager_unlock_key each have clear purposes and consequences. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update swarm-wide settings: the single home for join-token and unlock-key rotation.' It is specific about the verb (update), resource (swarm-wide settings), and scope (join-token and unlock-key rotation), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swarm_join_tokens and swarm_unlock_key by being the rotation entry point.

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?

It gives explicit context: 'Must be called on a swarm manager node,' explains when to use it (for rotation), and tells the agent to use swarm_join_tokens and swarm_unlock_key for retrieval. It also describes the consequences of use (invalidation, manager re-unlock), providing clear guidance on when to invoke this tool vs alternatives.

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