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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the secret value is entered privately in BEON PASS and never transits the AI, and execution is gated on explicit user approval of the exact request. That is real operational context. It stops short of saying what happens to a pre-existing secret of the same name (overwrite semantics).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two behavioral facts that matter. No filler and nothing buried.

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, approval-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers the interaction model adequately but leaves the parameter surface and any overwrite/rollback consequences unstated. It is enough to attempt the call correctly, not enough to fully predict its effects.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only implicitly explains one conceptual slot (why there is no 'value' parameter, since the value is entered in BEON PASS), while project_ref, name (uppercase pattern, max 100), approval_id and the beon_* context fields are left entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Edge Function secret'), and the pairing with the sibling 'supabase_delete_function_secret' makes the create/update vs. remove distinction obvious without opening any schema. An agent can identify the operation immediately.

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 the execution flow (private value entry, mandatory approval) but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as supabase_deploy_edge_function or the delete-secret sibling. Usage is implied by the operation name rather than explicitly scoped.

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