rotate_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Rotate an API key' is vague and does not specify whether the old key is invalidated, whether a new key is returned, or if the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action without unnecessary words. While it could include more detail without becoming verbose, the extreme brevity is a strength in terms of conciseness and structure.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the rotation process, the fate of the old key, or what the expected outcome is. A more complete description would clarify these aspects to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter `key_id` with a clear description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it is consistent with the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Rotate' with the resource 'API key', which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_key, list_api_keys, and delete_api_key. However, the exact semantics of 'rotate' (e.g., invalidating the old key) are not explained, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use rotation versus creating or deleting a key, nor does it state any prerequisites or contextual triggers. This leaves the agent without information on how to choose this tool appropriately.

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