webhooks_regenerate_secret

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

The description discloses behavior the annotations do not: the previous secret is invalidated immediately (a consequence not captured by destructiveHint=false), and the new secret is shown in full exactly once, so it must be persisted by the caller. That 'store it securely, you will not see it again' warning is the single most important behavioral fact about this tool and it is stated plainly.

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 doing distinct work: what it does, the destructive side effect, and the caller's obligation afterward. The critical side effect is front-loaded in the first sentence, leaving no waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what the response contains and its one-time nature. Combined with the annotations and a fully-described two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and handle the result.

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%, with both `uuid` and `companyId` documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters — no note on how companyId interacts with the endpoint's owning company or what happens if it mismatches the webhook's company.

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 gives a specific verb ('Issue a new') and a precise resource ('HMAC-SHA256 signing secret for a webhook endpoint'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as webhooks_update or oauth2_clients_rotate_secret, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the operational caution ('Update your endpoint verification logic before calling this in production') tells the caller to prepare downstream verifiers first, which is genuinely useful sequencing advice. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of when not to call it, and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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