Regenerate client secret

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: the write is non-idempotent, invalidates the previous secret immediately, and requires confirmation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences in a short paragraph) with no redundancy. It front-loads the action, then covers consequences, alternatives, and return value efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clarifies the return value (new plaintext secret or reason string). It fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and consequences. No gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: for clientId, it clarifies it's the human-readable identifier (not UUID) and the confidentiality requirement; for confirm, it explains the safeguard role and default behavior. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Regenerate (rotate) a confidential client's secret,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like keycloak_client_get_secret (read-only) and keycloak_client_update (non-secret updates).

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?

Explicitly mentions the alternative keycloak_client_get_secret for reading without rotating. Specifies the safeguard mechanism (confirm=true) and the consequence of invalidating the old secret. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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