rotate_key

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

Discloses key behaviors: generates fresh keys and invalidates all outstanding Compliance Receipts. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden. It does not mention prerequisites or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a clarification on mode. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff. Front-loaded with action and consequence.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. However, it could mention the return value or whether the tool requires special permissions.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'mode'. The description restates the enum values and default, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool rotates receipt-signing key material (HMAC and/or Ed25519) and invalidates all outstanding Compliance Receipts. It uses specific verb 'rotate' and resource 'receipt-signing key material', distinguishing it from sibling tools which are memory/data 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use after a suspected key leak — e.g. the .keyring was ever committed or synced.' It explains the consequence (invalidates all receipts) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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