Rotate license

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those fields: the required scope (edit_products) and the mandatory per-call confirmation. It still omits the core behavioral consequence for a destructive rotation — whether the previously issued key stops working.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the endpoint, scope, and confirmation constraint. No filler. The telegraphic style ('Reviewed native PUT') is dense but each fragment carries information.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and confirmation but leaves the key question unanswered: what rotation does to the existing license key and whether it is recoverable. With a fully documented schema, the remaining gap is behavioral rather than parameter-related, keeping it at minimum-viable.

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 all four parameters (account, confirm, product_id, output_file) are already documented, including the note that output_file must be a new non-overwritten path. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Rotate license') and identifies the underlying operation (PUT /licenses/rotate), so the action is identifiable. However, it never explains what 'rotate' actually does (issue a replacement key, invalidate the old one) and gives no differentiation from siblings like enable_license, disable_license, or verify_license that also operate on licenses.

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?

States two real preconditions: the edit_products scope and that explicit per-call confirmation is required, which is actionable guidance. It does not say when to choose rotation over disable_license/revoke_sale_access, or under what circumstances rotation is the right remedy, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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