rotate_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive effect (old key is deactivated immediately), the continuity of billing on the same subscription, and the critical constraint that the returned api_key cannot be retrieved later. This is strong behavioral context for a mutation operation, though auth requirements are not mentioned.

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 and well-structured: it states the action first, then the behavioral consequences, then the user instructions, and finally the return shape. Every sentence adds necessary operational value with 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It names the return keys, tells the agent how to present the result, and warns about the one-shot retrieval limitation. There are no missing details an agent would need to call this correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to interpret. The description appropriately explains the return value and the post-call handling of the api_key, which is the only semantic information an agent needs here.

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 verb and resource: "Rotate the current Enrichr API key." This unambiguously identifies the action and object, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like call_enrichr, account_usage, and billing_portal, which serve unrelated account or enrichment purposes.

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 phrase "Rotate the current Enrichr API key" implies when to use it, and the behavior around deactivation clarifies the effect. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites for using it.

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