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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds little beyond that – it never states that deletions are irreversible, what happens to secrets currently referenced by a deployed version, or whether a confirmation step is expected. Adequate, but thin for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and the workflow pointer follows logically. The trailing 'MCP version 2.12.' is a fragment, but it does help the agent populate the required mcp_version parameter.

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 destructive, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, key inputs, and a workflow pointer, and annotations carry the safety hints. It omits consequences of deletion and any preconditions, which an agent would want before invoking a destructive tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the note that missing names are ignored and the uppercase env-style pattern. The description only restates 'pass app_id and secret_names', adding no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (remove secrets from an app) and names the two required inputs, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like set_app_secrets or create_secret_entry, but the 'delete' wording is distinct enough to route correctly.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('when the user requests secret removal') and points to get_secret_entry_instructions for usage and workflow details. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance (e.g., confirm before deleting), so it stops short of a 5.

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