vault_rotate

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: the old value is permanently replaced (irreversible), and the new value is write-only and never returned. With no annotations provided, this description effectively carries the full burden, though it could mention if any confirmations or rollbacks exist.

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, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value (action, old value fate, new value behavior). Slightly more context for agent selection could improve it, but no waste is present.

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 tool's low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what happens to the old and new values. However, with no annotations nor output schema, it could mention whether the rotation succeeds silently or returns a confirmation.

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%, so the parameters (credential_id, new_value) are already documented with descriptions. The description adds 'Write-only: never returned in responses' for new_value, which reinforces schema info but doesn't add new meaning beyond the structured schema details.

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 clear verb ('Rotate') and resource ('an existing credential'), explains the key action ('replace the secret value'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_store and vault_list by specifying it operates on existing credentials.

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 when to use the tool (when rotating an existing credential) but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternatives like vault_store for new credentials. No exclusions or context for selection among siblings is provided.

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