Rotate Yolfi Webhook Signing Secret

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

Annotations already declare a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the new secret is written into the protected local Yolfi config and the plaintext is never returned. This tells the agent not to expect a secret in the response and that rotation is silent and irreversible. It stops short of saying whether the old secret is immediately invalidated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers action, scope, side effect, and the non-return of the plaintext with no filler. Nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully clarifies that no plaintext secret is returned, which is the key thing an agent needs to know about the response. Minor gaps remain around old-secret invalidation and any permissions required.

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%, with both id (webhook endpoint id) and confirm (const true, explicit user confirmation) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further detail about the parameters, so the 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?

Names a specific verb (rotate) and a precisely scoped resource (an endpoint-specific webhook signing secret), which separates it from yolfi_webhooks_configure and yolfi_webhooks_update that deal with endpoint settings rather than the secret itself. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 states no conditions for use, no prerequisites (e.g. existing endpoint, auth requirements), and no alternatives among the many sibling webhook tools. The only guidance-like content, that confirm must be true after explicit user confirmation, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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