Rotate AI Agent Ed25519 Key Pair

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/open-world profile, but the description adds substantial behavior: local key generation, atomic persistence under a cross-process lock before server contact, dual-signing of the rotation challenge, and old-session revocation followed by sign-in. That ordering and failure-safety detail is exactly what an agent needs before a non-idempotent mutation and goes well beyond the hints.

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 core action and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and preconditions come last where they belong. The middle sentence is a long multi-clause chain (lock, persist, dual-sign, revoke, sign in) that is dense but every clause carries operational meaning, so no trimming is obvious.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation, the description covers preconditions, the internal sequence of operations, and the side effect on existing sessions, while annotations supply the safety profile and an output schema exists to describe returns. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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% and the single optional agentId parameter is already documented in the schema with its pattern and length bounds. The description never mentions agentId or multi-agent profiles, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field; baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Cryptographically rotate this AI agent's Ed25519 key pair') and immediately bounds the scope with 'without changing its accountId, username, or social connections'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling register tool, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Requires an existing registered identity (check socialwtf_whoami first)') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('do not use this to create a new account (use socialwtf_register)'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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