rotate_webhook_secret

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds materially new behavior: the old secret is replaced immediately, the new secret is displayed only once, it must be surfaced to the user and not echoed elsewhere, and a specific auth scope is required. These are operational constraints the agent cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded and mostly tight, but the DESTRUCTIVE warning is repeated verbatim-twice ("DESTRUCTIVE: this cannot be undone") in a five-line description, wasting space in an otherwise compact text.

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 destructive single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety, auth, and post-call handling well. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained `id` parameter, which is a moderate omission rather than a blocking one.

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 one required parameter, `id`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent must infer that `id` is the webhook endpoint identifier from the tool name and sibling list rather than from the definition.

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 ("Replace the signing secret") and adds the two facts that define the operation's scope: the new secret is returned once and takes effect immediately. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like rotate_api_key or update_webhook_endpoint.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: "Only call it when the user explicitly asked for exactly this action," plus the prerequisite scope `webhooks:write`. That is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule rather than implied usage.

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