rotate_webhook_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses immediate invalidation, no grace period, one-time display of the new secret, and the failure mode where the previous secret may already be invalidated after a network error. These are critical behavioral traits beyond a simple 'rotate' action.

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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence delivers essential operational warnings or retry guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then logically presents consequences, action items, and edge-case handling.

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's mutating nature and the presence of an output schema (which can define return values), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, side effects, timing, error semantics, and recovery steps. It is complete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 schema has one required parameter (subscription_id) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'webhook subscription' but does not explicitly define what subscription_id is or its format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a new HMAC signing secret for a webhook subscription.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_webhook or delete_webhook. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 provides explicit timing instructions: update verifier before/atomically with calling, and warns about immediate invalidation. It also tells the agent what to do on error (call again for a fresh secret) rather than retrying with the old one. This is strong usage guidance.

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