beel_rotate_webhook_secret

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the old secret is immediately invalidated and the new secret is returned only once. These are not derivable from annotations and are essential for correct invocation.

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 three concise sentences plus an endpoint line, all directly useful. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by two critical operational warnings; no superfluous content exists.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential caveats: invalidation timing, single-return of new secret, and the need to update verification logic. It does not describe the response format, but that is less critical given the operation's simplicity and the strong schema coverage.

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 100% for all parameters (account_id, webhook_id, idempotency_key), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It correctly relies on the schema for parameter semantics, which is the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Generates a new HMAC secret for a webhook subscription,' a precise verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_webhook_subscription, patch_webhook_subscription, or delete_webhook_subscription. The scope is unambiguous.

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 usage through its purpose but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It does provide operational guidance ('update your signature verification logic before rotating'), which is valuable context, but it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. sibling routing.

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