nexalayer_rotate_session

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful new behavior: credentials are suppressed by default and must never be logged. It omits what happens to the pre-rotation session or failure behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its trigger, followed by the credential caveat. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the credential handling and trigger but says nothing about what rotation does to the existing session, whether it is reversible, or what is returned. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only include_credentials (default false, gates credential return) and leaves reason, session_id, and idempotency_key completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('rotate a dynamic session') that is clearly distinct from sibling operations like nexalayer_create_session or nexalayer_terminate_session. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a trigger condition ('after health or telemetry recommends rotation'), which is real usage context, but no guidance on when to rotate versus terminate or recreate a session, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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