Rotate webhook secret

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

The annotation only says destructiveHint=true; the description adds real substance beyond that by disclosing the 24-hour dual-signing grace period so receivers can switch, the refusal condition for overlapping rotations, and the exact response shape including previousStopsAt. The only gap is the absence of any permission or permanence statement about what happens to the old secret after the window closes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then the behavioral caveat, then the return shape; no filler. The first sentence is a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase, which slightly weakens the opening but costs no length.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: grace period, refusal condition, and returned fields. It is close to complete; only authorization requirements and post-window invalidation of the old secret are left unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that it is the webhook id sourced from list_webhooks. The description adds nothing further about the id, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — the baseline of 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 identifies the exact resource and outcome: a new signing secret is generated for a webhook, and it explains the dual-signing window that makes this a rotation rather than a plain read. It is missing an explicit verb in the opening fragment, but combined with the name/title the action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from update_webhook or create_webhook.

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 supplies one concrete precondition — the call is 'refused while a rotation is still open' — which tells the agent when the tool will fail. However, it never states when an agent should rotate versus simply updating the webhook, nor does it name update_webhook as the alternative, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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