session_rotate_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly flags the most important destructive side effect: the previous token is invalidated. Minor gaps remain around whether an existing session must already be active and whether invalidation is immediate, but the critical behavior is well covered.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with the essential warning in parentheses. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter action with a low complexity and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names what the tool does and the key side effect. Only minor questions about session prerequisites and exact invalidation timing remain.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter-level explanation is needed because there is nothing for the agent to configure.

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 action (regenerate) applied to a specific resource (auth token). The warning 'invalide l'ancien' clarifies that this is a rotation, not a simple login or logout, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling session tools.

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?

Usage is implied from the name and action: use this to refresh or replace the auth token while invalidating the old one. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer rotate over session_login or session_status, nor does it state prerequisites such as requiring an existing authenticated session.

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