updateSecretUpdate specific secret by id - Update attributes to your secret. Attributes are optional. If not set, the attributes will retain their original values. Only name and value can be updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secretId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| updateSecretBody | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a destructive hint and non-read-only behavior, so the description adds extra context: attributes are optional and retain original values if not set, clarifying the update semantics. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining partial-update behavior, though it doesn't cover permissions or side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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 main purpose and followed by concise constraints. Every sentence provides relevant information without fluff or repetition, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 mutation tool with a destructive hint and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: target resource, updatable fields, optional attribute behavior, and constraints. It omits details like response handling or authentication, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of annotations reduce the burden. Overall, it's complete enough for practical use.
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 description adds meaning to the updateSecretBody parameter by stating attributes are optional and only name/value can be updated. However, the required parameters x-request-id and secretId are only implicitly covered ('by id'), and x-trace-id is not explained. With schema description coverage at 0% for top-level parameters, the description only partially compensates.
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 clearly states the tool updates a specific secret by ID, using the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'secret' and scope 'by id'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like createSecret and deleteSecret by specifying that only name and value can be updated, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: updating an existing secret's name or value. It notes that attributes are optional and retain original values, implying a partial-update use case. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the restriction 'Only name and value can be updated' implicitly tells users not to use it for other attribute changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.