Rotate webhook secret

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds critical behavior: old callers break immediately, the new secret takes a few seconds to propagate, a single 401 should be treated as delay, and the operation is refused if deploys are disabled.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying needed information: action, danger, propagation warning, and refusal condition. The destructive warning is front-loaded after the action statement, and there is no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. For a destructive secret-rotation operation, the description covers the important risks, propagation timing, retry behavior, and refusal condition completely enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single workflowId parameter is already documented as coming from list_workflows or create_workflow. The description implies a deployed workflow but adds no further parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 and resource: generating a new webhook secret for a deployed workflow's trigger, redeploying it, and returning the new secret. It clearly distinguishes this mutation from sibling tools like deploy_workflow or update_workflow by naming the exact resource and action.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user asks or needs the secret to call the webhook themselves. It also states a refusal condition when the owner turned off deploys, and warns against rotating again after a propagation-delay 401.

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