rotate_consumer_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Rotate a consumer API key'. It does not disclose whether the old key is immediately invalidated, whether a new key is returned, whether active requests are affected, or any other side effects. For a destructive-ish security-sensitive mutation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail.

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 that this is a key-rotation mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. A competent agent cannot tell what the operation actually does to the consumer's keys or what the expected outcome is, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, consumer_id, is fully described in the input schema as 'Consumer ID (UUID)', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Rotate') on a specific resource ('a consumer API key'), so an agent can tell it is a key-management operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like revoke_consumer_key or toggle_consumer_key, which are also key lifecycle operations.

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?

No guidance is given about when rotation should be chosen over revoke, reactivate, or toggle. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the right scenario.

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