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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is known. The description adds valuable context that the secret value is never returned and is encrypted, which goes beyond annotations and informs agents about security implications. It does not contradict the 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?

A single, dense sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical behavior (never returned) is immediately stated. Very efficient.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It notes the encryption and non-return of the value, which is crucial for agents. It does not describe error handling or overwrite specifics, but those are not required given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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%, so all three parameters (key, value, app_id) are already documented. The description repeats 'encrypted' which is also in the schema's value description, adding no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create or update'), the resource ('one encrypted app secret'), and the encryption characteristic. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_secret and list_secret_keys by focusing on write/update semantics.

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 implicitly signals when to use this tool (to set or change a secret) but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as delete_secret or list_secret_keys. It provides clear context without exclusions, which fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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