regenerate_client_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The term 'regenerate' implies a mutation (destructive change), but no details are given about side effects (e.g., old secret invalidation, permission requirements, rate limits). The return of a new client secret object is stated, but that is minimal.

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 extremely concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence is necessary and adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers their semantics. Yet it lacks usage context (when to call) and behavioral details (side effects), which are partially compensated by the tool's name and schema. Overall adequate but missing some completeness for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond schema titles: 'id' is clarified as 'The client's database ID', and 'realm' is explained as 'Target realm (uses default if not specified)'. This is helpful, though it could specify what the default realm is or how it is determined.

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 ('Regenerate the client secret') and identifies the resource ('client secret'). The verb 'regenerate' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_client_secret' (read) and 'update_client' (general update). The parameter names and brief descriptions further clarify the scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this invalidates the current secret or that it should be used only when secrets are compromised. Sibling tools exist for similar operations, but no comparative advice is given.

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