openpanel_regenerate_client_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to mention critical behavioral traits: whether old secrets are immediately invalidated, if the operation is atomic, or what authentication requirements exist for this sensitive mutation.

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 efficiently brief at one sentence. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix serves no semantic purpose in the description itself. Despite this noise, the core message is front-loaded and clear.

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 credential mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It omits return value structure (presumably the new secret), side effects, and prerequisites needed for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 3 required parameters (site, project_id, client_id), the description must compensate but mentions none of them. While the parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, the description adds no semantic context (e.g., what format 'site' expects, or that client_id refers to the API client being rotated).

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 provides a specific verb ('Regenerate') and resource ('secret for an API client') that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like openpanel_create_client or openpanel_delete_client by focusing specifically on credential rotation.

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?

While the implied use case (rotating credentials) is inferable from 'Regenerate', there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus creating a new client, nor warnings about side effects (e.g., immediate invalidation of previous secrets).

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