rotate_key

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write and that dry_run is mirrored into the Mcp-Param-Dry-Run header with SDK-validated agreement, which is genuine behavioral context. However, for a credential-rotation mutation it says nothing about whether the old credential is invalidated immediately, whether there is a grace period, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required — the critical consequences are undisclosed.

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 short sentences with the operation type front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ("mirrored", "SDK validates agreement") but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin: credential lifecycle effects, safety profile, and usage conditions are all 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and it only partially does. It explains the dry_run header mirroring and the SDK agreement check, but never says what dry_run actually produces (a preview? a no-op response?) and never explains the required name parameter or its format.

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?

"Rotate a credential" names a specific verb and resource, and "(write)" flags the operation class, so the agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools, though those are all service-level operations, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no statement of when rotation should be performed, what prerequisites exist (e.g. an existing key or admin scope), or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer the entire usage context from the name alone.

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