Rotate a routine trigger secret

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

Annotations provide no destructive or idempotent hints. The description adds only the URL and auth class, omitting what rotation entails (e.g., invalidates old secret, generates new one), leaving the agent guessing about side effects.

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?

Description is very short and front-loaded with purpose, then technical details. It is not verbose, but the minimalism sacrifices informativeness. An average score for conciseness that doesn't add much 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and two parameters (one nested), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the operation's outcome, request body expectations, or any constraints, leaving substantial gaps.

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 has two parameters (path.id and body) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to or what the body requires, leaving the agent without essential semantic context.

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 the verb 'Rotate' and resource 'routine trigger secret', and distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_post_secrets_by_id_rotate and pc_patch_routine_triggers_by_id by specifying the endpoint and authorization class. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to rotate a secret vs. patch a trigger). No prerequisites or context provided.

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