Rotate Secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a meaningful side-effect (re-encryption under a fresh key, implying the secret value is preserved) and an entitlement gate ('Requires Pro tier'), but it stays silent on whether rotating breaks active shares (relevant given share_secret/revoke_share siblings), on reversibility, and on required permissions beyond tier. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a partial but not complete disclosure.

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, each earning its place: operation semantics, when to use, and the tier prerequisite. The core verb is front-loaded, with no filler and no repetition of the title.

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 low-complexity tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no enums), the description covers purpose, timing, and a prerequisite. The only notable gap is the effect of rotation on shared secrets and existing ciphertext references, which is relevant given the sharing siblings. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100% — the single 'name' parameter is already documented as 'Secret name to rotate' — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as format, required permissions, or constraints on 'name.' It neither compensates for a schema gap nor harms; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Re-encrypt a secret with a fresh Data Encryption Key' — which precisely distinguishes the operation from every sibling (set_secret creates, get_secret reads, delete_secret destroys, list_secrets enumerates). The mechanism (fresh DEK) adds precision beyond the generic title 'Rotate Secret.' An agent can reliably know what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

'Use after KMS key rotation or as a security best practice' provides explicit, actionable timing context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling offers rotation, so the contrast is implicit. This is clear context with no exclusions, just shy of the full when/when-not/alternative rubric for a 5.

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