scf_rotate_webhook_secret

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: immediate invalidation of old secret, one-time return of new plaintext secret, and required admin role. This is comprehensive for a write operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, followed by behavioral details. No redundant information. Each sentence contributes value.

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 description covers core behavior, return value, and access level. It lacks error handling or prerequisite details, but for a simple rotation tool with no output schema, it is sufficient. Could mention what happens if endpoint is missing.

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 100% with clear descriptions. The description does not add meaning to individual parameters but provides context about the operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (rotate HMAC signing secret), the resource (webhook endpoint), and key attributes (admin role, immediate invalidation, one-time return). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly read or other operations.

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?

The description mentions admin role and write operation, implying it's for authorized users, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Siblings include other webhook tools but no other rotation tool, so guidance is implicit.

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