Rotate a Linear workspace webhook signing secret to invalidate a potentially exposed secret and restore secure webhook deliveries. Requires confirmation that the existing secret may be compromised.
Rotate an ordinary workspace webhook signing secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirmSecretExposure | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| secret | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no context about side effects like immediate invalidation of the old secret or impact on webhook callers. It is adequate but does not enrich beyond annotations.
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 a single concise sentence of 7 words, front-loading the verb and resource with no wasted words.
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?
The description is short but covers the core action. However, it leaves ambiguity about the required parameters and the output. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is functional but not fully complete.
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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'id' (presumably the webhook ID) or 'confirmSecretExposure' (a confirmation flag). The brief description provides minimal semantic support.
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 specifies the action 'Rotate' and the resource 'ordinary workspace webhook signing secret', distinguishing it from sibling tools like linear_rotateManagedOAuthApplicationSecret and linear_rotateManagedOAuthApplicationWebhookSecret.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions such as requiring confirmation of secret exposure, which is only implied by the required parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.