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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it states that the secret becomes an environment variable, that the tool is restarted, and that the value must not be echoed back to the user. This reveals side effects and security expectations beyond what the bare parameter names 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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the core action, the key side effect, the naming rule, and a critical security instruction. The most important operational fact 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 simple setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential side effect (restart) and the security invariant (never echo). It does not state whether an existing secret is overwritten or what response to expect, but for this operation those gaps are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the UPPER_SNAKE_CASE convention and the injection behavior, but it does not add substantial new meaning about the tool, workspace, or value parameters 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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource construction, 'Set one secret on a tool,' and clarifies the payload is a single secret injected as an environment variable. This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling secrets_delete and secrets_list without needing to read their schemas.

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 implies the tool is for creating/replacing a secret rather than listing or deleting secrets, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool or when to use an alternative. 'Never echo the value back to the user' is useful behavior guidance, not usage-vs-alternative guidance.

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