Regenerate Caller Tokens (F1)

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it explains that rotation produces only fingerprints in the response and that the operator token must be isolated in a separate human-console MCP host. These details add real security behavior knowledge that is not present in annotations or the schema.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by the prerequisite, output constraint, and distribution rules. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the title.

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 destructive security-sensitive operation, it names the prerequisite, describes the response limitation, and provides host-scope safety rules. Since the annotations already signal destructive behavior and there is no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It maps the 'caller' concept to 'six peer identities plus a distinct operator', which helps interpret the enum, but it never explicitly clarifies the response_format parameter or its default. The enum values are self-explanatory enough to avoid a lower score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rotate') and a specific resource ('the seven caller capability tokens'), and it clearly distinguishes this from the session and info tools listed among siblings. The noun phrasing could be tautological, but the enumeration of peer identities plus operator gives concrete scope.

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 provides strong contextual guidance: the prerequisite (requires current dedicated operator token), the operational handling of peer tokens vs the operator token, and explicit hosts where the operator token must never be placed. It does not explicitly compare to an alternative tool, but no sibling is a competing token-regeneration tool, so this context is sufficient.

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