refresh_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive behavior: the old key is invalidated immediately. It also states that the response contains the new key and mandates updating the environment variable. This is complete behavioral transparency.

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: the first states the action, the second warns of immediate invalidation, and the third gives a critical instruction. Every sentence is essential, front-loaded, and efficiently structured with no wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, side effect, and required follow-up action. It is fully self-contained and leaves no gaps in understanding the tool's impact and usage.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, which is fine. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description's value lies in behavioral context, not parameter semantics.

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 'Rotate the current API key' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which are related to API key management.

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 explicitly warns about immediate invalidation of the old key and instructs to update the CALCOM_API_KEY environment variable before making further requests. This provides clear when-to-use context and critical post-condition steps, leaving no ambiguity.

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