apikey_add_rotation

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no mention of what files are created, whether existing key configuration is overwritten, or what side effects occur. 'Generate' implies a write operation, but the agent cannot tell whether it's destructive, idempotent, or requires prior setup such as an existing API key system.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words; it is efficiently front-loaded. But it is short because it is thin, not because it is refined — it omits behavioral and parameter context that a tool with no annotations and no output schema needs.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, nothing tells the agent what the result looks like, what files are touched, or how rotation interacts with an existing apikey_generate_system output. The description is too thin to safely invoke a generation tool that writes to a project directory.

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 schema documents only the directory parameter out of two (50% coverage), and the description adds nothing about either parameter. The api_key parameter is entirely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it's the key to rotate, a prefix, or an authentication credential. With half the parameters undocumented, this is a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('API key rotation system'), so an agent can tell what action this performs. However, it doesn't differentiate from closely related siblings like apikey_generate_system or env_rotate_secrets, leaving ambiguity about whether this builds a standalone system or extends an existing one.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like apikey_generate_system, apikey_add_scoping, and env_rotate_secrets nearby, there is no condition or cue in the description directing selection. The 'Pro feature' tag is a plan constraint, not usage guidance.

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