rotate_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behaviors: planned mode with configurable overlap (default 24h), emergency mode with immediate old-key retirement, and that it returns revocation results. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like cascading delegation revocation (though hinted via 'revocation results') or any permission requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a concise two-sentence summary that front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the two modes, and finally lists return values. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behaviors and return values. It explains both modes and mentions revocation results, but it lacks details on prerequisites, default behavior of optional parameters beyond what schema shows, and explicit side effects. Still, it is reasonably complete for the complexity.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context to activation_delay_hours (default 24h) and mode semantics, but these are already well-described in the schema. It does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Rotate an agent's Ed25519 key.' It distinguishes from siblings like verify_rotation_chain or generate_keys by focusing on rotation and specifying two modes (planned/emergency) and return values.

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 implies when to use each mode (planned for configurable overlap, emergency for immediate retirement) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other key-related tools, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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