webhooks_regenerate_secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the previous secret is immediately invalidated, that the new secret is returned in full only in this single response (so it must be stored securely), and warns to update verification logic beforehand. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to know: irreversibility, one-time retrieval, and the operational prerequisite.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the security-critical retrieval behavior, and the production warning. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently conveys all necessary operational caveats without padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete for a security-sensitive mutation tool. It explains the action, the irreversibility, the one-time secret retrieval, and the prerequisite verification update. For a tool where the return value is the secret itself, the description adequately sets expectations without needing to detail a complex response structure.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (uuid and companyId). The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the uuid by tying it to the webhook endpoint being rotated. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no new semantic layer beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Issue) and the resource (a new HMAC-SHA256 signing secret for a webhook endpoint), and explicitly mentions the side effect of immediately invalidating the previous one. This is a specific and unambiguous action that distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools like webhooks_update or webhooks_delete.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool — to rotate a webhook signing secret — and includes critical timing advice ('Update your endpoint verification logic before calling this in production'). This effectively tells the agent the operational context and cautions about production impact, which is strong usage guidance for a security-sensitive mutation.

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