manage_api_keys_rotate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: the atomic-like nature of create-then-revoke, preservation of scopes, and the crucial warning that new keys 'won't be shown again.' Missing only secondary details like permission requirements or grace periods for old keys.

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?

Excellent structure with clear sections (summary, mechanism, usage, args, returns). Every sentence adds value: the one-line summary, the mechanism explanation, the use-case guidance, and the critical 'SAVE THEM' warning. No redundant or wasted text.

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?

Given no output schema exists, the description appropriately documents the return type ('dict: List of new keys') and emphasizes the one-time visibility constraint. Adequate for a single-parameter destructive operation, though error scenarios or permission prerequisites could enhance it further.

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% (no description field for project_id), but the description compensates effectively with an Args section explicitly stating 'project_id: Project ID to rotate keys for,' clarifying the parameter's purpose. Would be a 5 if it included format examples or constraints.

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 specific action (rotate), resource (API keys), and scope (all keys for a project). It distinguishes from siblings like manage_api_keys_revoke or manage_api_keys_create by explicitly stating the mechanism: 'Creates new keys with the same scopes and revokes old ones,' making it clear this is a combined replacement operation.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('security rotation or if keys may be compromised') that helps the agent understand appropriate contexts. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives (e.g., noting that manage_api_keys_revoke should be used if you only want to revoke without creating replacements).

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