admin_regenerate_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states a key behavioral consequence: 'The old token becomes invalid immediately.' This reveals the destructive/irreversible nature of the action. It does not mention other potential side effects or prerequisites, but the most critical behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then a concise behavioral consequence. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and the immediate consequence. It does not explain the response format or admin requirements, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the admin_ prefix in the name.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter accountId with description 'UUID of the account' (100% coverage). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but per the rubric baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Regenerate identification token for an account.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like admin_connect_account or admin_disconnect_account, as it describes a distinct action on a distinct resource.

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 implies when to use it (when an identification token needs regeneration) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. Since the action is self-explanatory and no sibling tool performs the same function, the implied usage is adequate.

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