linear_rotateManagedOAuthApplicationSecret

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: the new one-time secret is exposed in the result, and existing client-credentials tokens may be invalidated. This adds value over the destructiveHint annotation and warns the agent about consequences.

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 long, front-loading the action and resource, then adding important consequences. No unnecessary words; 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?

Given the tool has two parameters, an output schema, and involves security implications, the description covers the essential points: what is rotated, who owns it, the secret exposure, and potential token invalidation. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds context for the `id` parameter by implying it identifies the alpha child app, which is not detailed in the schema. The `confirmSecretExposure` parameter is well-described in the schema, and the tool description reinforces its purpose. With 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates sufficiently.

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 tool's purpose: 'Rotate the client secret of an alpha child app owned by the calling OAuth application.' This is a specific verb (rotate) and resource (client secret), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools that rotate webhook secrets or other types of secrets.

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 when to use this tool (to rotate a client secret for an alpha child app) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like rotaryManagedOAuthApplicationWebhookSecret. However, given the clear resource distinction, it provides sufficient context for an agent to choose correctly.

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