Rotate a webhook endpoint secret

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description goes beyond them by warning that rotation 'may affect delivery, audience membership, published data or irreversible state', that confirm is required, and that webhook responses are redacted while new secrets are written to a private local file. These are genuinely useful behavioral facts not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequences, with no filler. The confirm sentence lightly duplicates the schema but earns its place as a safety callout.

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 mutation tool with rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the important agent-facing concerns: consequences, the confirm gate, and where the new secret is stored. Little relevant information is 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters like force, secret_name, and payload are already fully documented in the schema. The description largely restates the confirm requirement and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rotate a webhook endpoint secret') matching the title, and adds the key consequence that new signing secrets land in a private local file. It does not, however, distinguish this from the very close sibling 'revoke_previous_webhook_secret', which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

'Requires confirm=true' gives a concrete precondition for invoking the tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus the near-identical 'revoke_previous_webhook_secret' sibling or guidance on overlap-window/force usage, so the usage context is only implied.

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