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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses a non-obvious side effect: the secret does not disappear immediately but only on the tool's next restart or deploy. This goes beyond simply saying 'delete' and gives the agent accurate expectations.

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?

Two short sentences communicate the core action and the key timing behavior with zero wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity destructive operation, this is fairly complete: the description states what is removed, the target scope, and the delayed effect. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear behavioral outcome, though mentioning that secrets_list can be used to find existing secret names would have been a small addition.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'one secret' and 'from a tool' lightly reinforces the name and tool parameters, but it adds no substantive detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Remove one secret') and a specific resource ('from a tool'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_list, secrets_set, and delete_tool. The scope is precise and immediately understandable.

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 usage context is implied: this is the tool to delete a secret from a tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over secrets_set or how workspace selection affects the operation, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose.

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