api_key_rotate

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the sequence (generates, verifies, revokes), the return value (new key and rotation status), and a critical caveat (key shown only once and must be saved). This gives the agent essential information about side effects and consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then detailing the workflow and ending with a critical warning. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 the moderate complexity of a rotation operation, the description covers all essential aspects: the steps performed, the return value, and the one-time visibility of the new key. There is no output schema, but the return value is clearly stated. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what will happen and what to do afterward.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter (token_name), so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the schema's own description is sufficient. No additional value from the description is needed here.

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 the specific verb 'Rotate' with the resource 'API key', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like api_key_generate and api_key_revoke by describing the combined workflow (generate → verify → revoke). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when rotating the current API key. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow description implies it is for replacing an existing key rather than simply generating or revoking. This is clear context without explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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