rotate_webhook_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility ('old secret is invalidated immediately') and one-time visibility ('new secret is shown once'), the two most safety-critical traits. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit or scope consequences.

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, with the destructive warning front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Zero 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?

For a simple 1-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the destructive warning, and what comes back ('shown once'). It could note that callers must persist the secret locally or clarify response shape, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description should compensate but never mentions webhookId, its format, or where to source it. The only help is that 'for a webhook' loosely implies the target, which is weak but non-zero.

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?

A specific verb+resource: 'Rotate the HMAC signing secret for a webhook.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_webhook_secret (read), update_webhook (config edit), create_webhook, and delete_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?

'update your server before calling this' gives an explicit precondition and ordering for use. It doesn't name sibling alternatives (e.g., get_webhook_secret) or state when-not-to-use, which keeps it below a 5.

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