renew_mcp_server_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool MUTATES, that the old URL stops working (a destructive consequence), that confirmation is needed, and that a specific privilege is required. This is excellent transparency for a mutation tool, covering irreversibility and auth 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. It consists of two sentences: the first explains what happens, the second provides essential cautions and prerequisites. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the destructive effect, the need for confirmation, and the privilege requirement. However, it omits any mention of the return value (e.g., does it return the new token?) and does not specify what 'handle' should be set to, leaving minor gaps for full invocation clarity.

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 schema provides a single parameter 'handle' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'handle' refers to or how it should be formatted. It only mentions 'an AI Hub MCP server's token', which implies the handle identifies that server, but the description adds no explicit parameter semantics, so the agent is left to infer the meaning.

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 identifies the resource: 'an AI Hub MCP server's token / mcp_url'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_mcp_server, create_mcp_server, or delete_mcp_server by describing a token rotation action and its key consequence (old URL stops working).

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 clear context for when to use it: to rotate an MCP server's token. It also provides important usage warnings ('MUTATES — confirm first') and a prerequisite ('Needs the MCP privilege'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'rotate' action is distinct from sibling operations, so the context is sufficient.

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