jumpserver_console_rotate_token

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that the old token dies immediately, that stable mode leaves the console address unchanged, that a page reload picks up the new token, and explicitly restates the non-read-only nature for emphasis. The annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the immediate invalidation semantics and recovery behavior, which is exactly the context an agent needs.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the post-condition/recovery path, and the trigger plus safety note. Front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 zero-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the action, side effect, recovery workflow, and trigger. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any argument semantics, and it correctly focuses on behavior instead.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Revoke the ops-console access token and issue a fresh one') with clear scope and side effects. No sibling tool deals with token rotation, so it is unambiguous in its domain.

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?

Names the concrete trigger ('Use when the console reports 令牌已过期') and describes the stable-mode default behavior. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but no obvious alternative exists among siblings.

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