auth_rotate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core action and one invariant ('keeping its credentials'), but does not state whether the old token is immediately invalidated, what the response contains, or any security implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose and a key behavioral constraint.

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 an auth mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the old token becomes invalid, or whether the replacement token is returned in the response.

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 0%, but the description does clarify that the single session_token parameter refers to the token being replaced. However, it adds no detail about token format, how to obtain it, or what the replacement entails beyond the obvious.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a session token.' The phrase 'keeping its credentials' adds meaningful scope and helps separate this from auth_revoke or auth_login, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like auth_login, auth_reauth, or auth_revoke. The use case is only implied by the word 'replace' and the credential-preserving clause.

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