Identity Rotate

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that the old token stays live during the overlap window, which is critical behavior not captured by the destructiveHint annotation. Requirements are also included.

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 concise sentences: first explains the core action and key behavior, second lists requirements. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential action and requirements. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, but the sibling list provides context.

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%, so the description adds no new parameter information beyond referencing the overlap window, which is already described in the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'rotate' and the resource 'managed identity' with a specific behavioral detail about keeping the old token live. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like identity_grant_jit or identity_revoke.

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 explicitly lists prerequisites: admin role, identity:write scope, and audit reason. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the clear prerequisites and context provide sufficient guidance.

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