rotate_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ADMIN ONLY restriction, that it works only over HTTP transport, that the operation revokes all tokens of the pair, and that the old token stops working immediately (destructive, non-reversible). It does not state permission-failure behavior or rate limits, but the core behavioral profile is covered.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the admin/transport constraints and the trigger condition front-loaded before the destructive effect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the admin/transport caveats plus the revocation semantics cover what an agent needs. A note on auth requirements or whether the new token appears in the response would close the remaining gap.

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 for both parameters. It explains that channel and role jointly identify the token set to revoke and reissue, which adds real meaning, but gives no valid values, case rules, or what happens if the pair has no existing token.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: revoke all tokens of one (channel, role) pair and issue a fresh token. The scope (one channel/role pair, all its tokens) makes it clearly distinct from create_channel, delete_channel, or revoke_board_access.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('Use when a token leaked or was lost'), which is concrete guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but rotation has no direct sibling equivalent, so the omission is minor.

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