Replace a credential request with a corrected one

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the original authorization is invalidated, the human must reauthorize from scratch, and authorized operations cannot be edited in place. This covers the key side effects and workflow consequences of a mutation tool.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides the key behavioral consequence and an important invariant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description explains the compound nature and authorization consequences sufficiently. It could additionally mention that all parameters must be resubmitted for the new request, but the schema and existing wording make the required inputs inferable.

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 71%, so most parameters have descriptions already. The tool description adds context around request_id by referring to 'pending request' and 'new operation from scratch,' but it does not explain parameter interactions or destination-specific requirements beyond what the schema provides. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 clearly states a compound operation: 'Cancel a pending request and create a new one.' The title, 'Replace a credential request with a corrected one,' further specifies the resource and intent, distinguishing this from sibling tools like secret.cancel and secret.store.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a pending request must be corrected, and specifically notes that 'an authorized operation can never be edited in place.' It doesn't explicitly contrast with secret.cancel or secret.store, but the described workflow makes the intended use case unambiguous.

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