noetic.rotate_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency, and it does well: it discloses that the tool mints a new token, retires the old one, requires a live session, and that the new token is shown only once. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects on other sessions, or authentication requirements beyond a live session. For a security-sensitive operation, more detail could be expected, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful.

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 concise, at two sentences, and front-loads the core action and benefit immediately. The second sentence adds the prerequisite and outcome, all in a clear flow. It loses a point because it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is still highly efficient for an agent.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the action, the trigger, the prerequisite, and the key outcome (new token shown once). The only slight gap is that it does not clarify what happens to the returned token (e.g., where it is returned or if there is any response schema), but given the 'shown once' note, an agent can infer the new token is returned. This is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has only one parameter, `sessionId`, and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no additional detail about the parameter beyond its existence. The description mentions 'requires a live session' but does not explicitly link that to the `sessionId` parameter, so the agent might infer that `sessionId` refers to the session. However, the parameter is self-explanatory, and the description's mention of 'live session' adds some context Morgensch. With a single obvious parameter)Skip

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 clearly states the action ('rotate' the bearer token), the resource ('this agent's bearer token'), and the outcomes (mint fresh token, retire old one). It is distinct from all sibling tools, as none other mentions token rotation. It also gives context for when to use it ('leak recovery or periodic 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 explains when to use the tool—'leak recovery or periodic rotation'—providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios where this tool should NOT be used or alternatives, though the nature of the tool makes those less relevant. It also implies a prerequisite ('Requires a live session'), which is useful.

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