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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: false), the description discloses that the link is one-time and pre-authorized, and provides client-side handling instructions (open in new tab, show raw URL in CLI). This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a practical usage instruction. Every sentence offers meaningful value with no redundancy.

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 create-link tool, the description covers purpose, input context, return URL, and client behavior. It does not mention how to check secret entry status (related sibling), but given no output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 describes both parameters (app_id and secret_name) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. The description mentions the return value (secret_entry_url) but not parameter details, which is acceptable given 100% 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 ('Create a one-time pre-authorized browser link') and the resource (a link for submitting a backend secret value). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_app_secrets (direct setting) and get_secret_entry_status (status checking).

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 explains when to use the tool ('so the user can submit a backend secret value outside chat without an extra login step'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies use cases where direct secret setting is not appropriate.

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