mailkite_rotate_api_key

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: the old key stops working immediately (irreversible invalidation), the fresh key is returned, and the plaintext is only shown here. It also notes the auth requirement (management session token). Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds meaningful context beyond them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action and immediate effect, the plaintext visibility warning, and the auth requirement. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the consequence, the return value, and the prerequisite. The only minor gap is not stating what happens if the management session token is invalid, but that is a standard auth failure and not essential for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool does and what it returns (a fresh key), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools 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 states a specific verb ('Rotate'), a specific resource ('the account API key'), and the immediate effect ('the old key stops working immediately and a fresh one is returned'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailkite_get_api_key and mailkite_create_scoped_key, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description clearly states the context for use: rotating the account API key, and notes the requirement of a management session token. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus related key-management tools.

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