Rotate a webhook’s signing secret

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: the answer carries the new secret exactly once (like create_webhook), the old secret is honored for 24 hours with both signatures on the webhook-signature header, and rotating again inside the window replaces rather than triples. These are non-obvious, high-stakes behaviors an agent must know.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the once-only secret warning leads, followed by the 24-hour dual-signing window, then the re-rotation caveat, then the trigger. Every sentence earns its place though the long em-dash clause takes effort.

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?

Everything an agent needs is present: what is produced, how many times it can be retrieved, the grace period and dual-signing mechanics, re-rotation semantics, and when to invoke it. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return behavior explicitly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the format spelled out ('whk-' plus sixteen hex characters). Description adds no new parameter detail beyond the schema's own documentation, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific action (mint a new signing secret) and the resource (a webhook subscription's signing secret), and distinguishes itself from the sibling rotate-adjacent tools by naming the exact effect (replaces signing material for the subscription). No sibling does this, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers — 'when a secret has leaked or when whoever held it has moved on' — plus the operational window for deploying the new secret. This is exactly the kind of selection guidance an agent needs.

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