regenerate_webhook_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool rotates the secret and returns it once, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., old secret becomes invalid immediately, possibly breaking pending deliveries), permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 no output schema, the description only says 'Returns the new secret once' without specifying the format (e.g., plain string or JSON). It also lacks information about idempotency, error conditions (e.g., invalid webhookId), and whether the rotation is immediate. The tool is simple, but important details are 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to guidance, with high coverage the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'HMAC signing secret for an outgoing webhook endpoint.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook or delete_webhook, which deal with webhook lifecycle rather than secret management.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to regenerate a webhook's secret, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., webhook must exist) or when not to use it. Among siblings, no other tool performs this action, so context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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