Regenerate Webhook Secret

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the immediate invalidation of the old secret, the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm, and — critically — that the new secret is returned only once and must be saved. That irreversibility and one-time-visibility detail is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the action, then the destructive consequence, then the one-time-return warning. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what an agent must know: what it produces, that it destroys the prior secret immediately, and that the value cannot be retrieved later. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about the id argument, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does all the work.

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 states a specific verb (generate/regenerate) and resource (HMAC-SHA256 signing secret for a webhook), which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearby update_webhook or create_webhook siblings, but the action is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you call this when rotating a compromised or stale credential. There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to update_webhook for non-secret changes.

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