Regenerate Caller Tokens (F1)

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

Aligned with annotations (destructiveHint=true). Adds details: overwrites existing file, mentions file location and env var override, explains that only fingerprints are returned, and describes the impact of stale tokens. No contradiction.

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 thorough but each sentence serves a purpose: action, file details, output behavior, post-call effect, use cases. It is front-loaded and well-structured. Slightly verbose but justified given the destructive nature.

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?

Covers behavior, impact, prerequisites, and use cases comprehensively for a destructive credential tool without output schema. Missing parameter descriptions is the only significant gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. Both parameters (caller, response_format) are enums with defaults, but their purpose and effect are undocumented. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Rotate the per-host secret tokens'), the resource (host-tokens.json), and the context (F1 identity gate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are session/peer management, not credential rotation.

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 lists three use cases: initial deployment, suspected leak, periodic rotation. It also explains the consequence (hosts with stale tokens get rejected) and operator responsibility (must redistribute secrets). Provides clear when-to-use and post-conditions.

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