Rotate an API key

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations: the old key remains valid for 24 hours, the new secret is returned only once, and the operator must hand it to the user immediately. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious safety and lifecycle behavior an agent needs to know.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries meaningful information: the replacement behavior, the 24-hour overlap, the single-return warning, and the required scope. There is no filler.

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 single-parameter utility, the description covers the action, the grace-period behavior, the one-time return, the permission requirement, and a concrete deployment scenario. The only small gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not specify the exact response shape or property name for the new secret, though it does say the secret is returned once.

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 input schema covers the single id parameter completely with type, minimum length, and an example. The description provides no extra parameter-specific detail, so based on 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Issue a replacement secret.' The detail that the old key keeps working for 24 hours clearly distinguishes rotation from creating a fresh key or revoking immediately, and the required id parameter ties it to an existing API key.

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 a concrete use case: rotating a key during a deploy so there is no service gap. It also names the required permission scope, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over create_api_key or revoke_api_key, leaving that routing to the agent's inference.

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