coronium_rotate_modem

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the external reset service URL, the authentication method, and optional polling. It does not mention potential side effects like IP change, timeouts, or error conditions, making transparency moderate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds meaningful detail.

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 and sparse annotations, the description covers the core mechanism, authentication, and polling but leaves gaps around max_wait_time, return values, and error handling. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 only documents proxy_identifier; max_wait_time and wait_for_completion lack descriptions. The description clarifies that polling is optional (aligning with wait_for_completion) but does not explain max_wait_time or how it relates to polling, failing to compensate for low schema 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 clearly states the tool performs 'Token-based rotation via the public reset service', specifying the action and method. It distinguishes from siblings like restart_modem and get_rotation_status by mentioning the token-based service and polling.

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 notes that no API token is required, using the per-modem rotation token instead, which gives context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative rotation/restart methods or state when not to use it.

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