rotate_developer_key

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

The description adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: the operation is atomic, the old key is revoked and a new one minted, AAL2 authentication is required, and the new plaintext is returned only once. This is especially important for a credential-rotation tool, where losing the one-time secret would be irreversible. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Two compact, front-loaded sentences convey the action, the atomicity, the authentication requirement, and the one-time return warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 security-sensitive credential operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what happens atomically, the required auth level, and the critical one-time return of the new secret. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and appreciate the irreversible nature of missing the plaintext.

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 already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, including key_id as UUID and access_token as the AAL2 token from verify_mfa. The description reinforces the AAL2 requirement but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 with a resource: 'Atomically rotate a developer key (revoke old, mint new).' This clearly distinguishes it from simple create or revoke operations, particularly given sibling tools like create_developer_key and revoke_developer_key. The verb and resource are explicit and meaningful.

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 clearly specifies a prerequisite ('Requires AAL2 session') and defines the exact use case as a combined revoke-and-mint operation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use them, but the intended context is strongly implied by the atomic rotation semantics.

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