Rotate private key

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

Annotations only say the tool is mutating and non-idempotent, so the description carries the burden of explaining effects. It does exceptionally well by disclosing that previous links and all sessions stop working immediately, that no restart occurs, and that public deploys become private. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.

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 compact sentences: core action and consequence, optional expiry, and public/private behavior plus return value. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral consequences, the special public-deploy case, and explicitly states the return value (new privateUrl). Combined with the high-quality schema, an agent has enough context to call it 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 input schema gives 100% parameter coverage, including the 'expires' format and default. The description only adds that expiry is optional, which is useful but not a major semantic addition beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Issue a new private key for a live tunnel deploy') and immediate consequence ('previous link and all sessions stop working at once'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like deploy or expose, even without naming them.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to rotate credentials on a running tunnel without restarting, optionally setting an expiry, and to convert a public deploy to private. It doesn't name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to make the right choice.

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