rca_auth_rotate_key

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

The description explains the deactivation and replacement, aligning with the `destructiveHint: true` annotation and adding detail beyond it. No contradiction. It also specifies the admin role requirement, which is a behavioral constraint.

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 concise—three sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or filler text.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage requirement, key parameter, and return format. It is largely sufficient, though more detail on parameters would improve completeness.

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 description only explains the 'key_id' parameter in the Args section. The 'token' and 'client_id' parameters are not elaborated, despite having schema descriptions. Since schema description coverage is 0% (low), the description should compensate more for all parameters.

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 deactivates an API key and generates a replacement for the same account. It specifies 'Admin role required (Enterprise plan)', making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like list or revoke keys.

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 indicates when to use (admin role, Enterprise plan) and mentions the required 'key_id'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tool set implies context. Still, it is clear overall.

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