prufa_rotate_monitor_webhook

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses one-time response, immediate expiration of old secret, idempotency, and behavior of idempotency_key. This is rich behavioral context, though it could mention potential side effects like delivery failure if CI is not updated.

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 compact sentences with no extraneous words. The critical action and caveats are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral details (one-time secret, idempotency). Missing a brief note on response format or example, but overall sufficient.

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 50% (idempotency_key described). The description adds meaning for idempotency_key (prevents re-execution on retries) but does not describe 'monitor_id' beyond its necessity. It partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'rotate' with the resource 'monitor's deploy-hook signing secret', making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'prufa_start_monitor' or 'prufa_trigger_monitor' by focusing on secret rotation, which is unique.

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 provides clear guidance: store the new secret immediately and update CI before the next delivery because the old secret dies at once. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently directive.

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