marrow_rotate_key

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

The critical warning 'Full plaintext key is returned once — copy it now' is a valuable behavioral disclosure not available in annotations (which are absent). It informs the agent that the key is non-retrievable after this call, though it omits other potential consequences like old key invalidation timing or permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior ('key is returned once') and gives practical guidance. It could be more complete by noting what happens to the old key, but the core context is present.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'id' as 'API key ID' (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'by ID' reinforces this but adds no novel semantic information beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rotate') and resource ('API key by ID'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like revoke and get by explicitly stating rotation.

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 implies use when needing to rotate an API key and warns to copy the returned plaintext, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_key or revoke_key, nor does it state when not to use the tool.

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