bus_rotate_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the two critical traits: the old token stops working (irreversible invalidation) and the new one is shown only once (must be captured immediately). It does not cover failure modes, whether other sessions are dropped, or who is authorized to rotate.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequences. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 small two-parameter mutation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the credential prerequisite and the irreversibility/one-time-display behavior. Only authorization and failure behavior are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'token' is the current token required only on an enforced bus, which explains why that parameter is optional, but it says nothing about the required 'agent' parameter's accepted format or whether it can name a different agent.

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 ('Rotate ... token') scoped to an agent, which no sibling tool duplicates. The phrase 'this agent's' is slightly at odds with the required 'agent' parameter, leaving a small ambiguity about whether it acts on the caller or on a named agent.

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?

Provides a prerequisite condition ('requires the current token on an enforced bus') that signals when the extra credential is needed. It gives no guidance on when to rotate versus leave a token alone, nor any mention of alternatives or admin scenarios.

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