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

The description adds valuable behavioral context: client-side encryption, a key carried in the link, and one-time consumption. However, 'the note is gone after it is read' describes a destructive delete on Open, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, creating a direct conflict for an agent relying on the annotation to understand opening consequences.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified for the tool's two-action complexity and leads with an implementation detail ('Encrypted in your browser') rather than the operation. It is concise but not structured to help an agent choose the right action.

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 tool with Create and Open actions plus several required parameters, the description omits the create/open mechanics, TTL and views semantics, and any explanation of how consumption works. No output schema exists, so the description carries more burden than it meets.

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%, and the schema uses a oneOf action shape with Create requiring ciphertext, ttl_s, and views, and Open taking a string. The description does not explain these action variants or map any parameter; 'the link holds the key' is conceptual only and does not clarify ciphertext, TTL, or view-count semantics.

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 conveys that this is an encrypted, one-time secret note whose key travels in the link, but it never states the actual operations (Create/Open) or gives a clear verb+resource phrasing. It is distinguishable as a secret-note concept, but not sharply from sibling secret tools such as space_secret_get or space_secret_put.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other secret-sharing or storage tools, and no explicit prerequisites beyond the implied browser-encryption model. The one-time-read behavior hints at a use case, but the description does not say when to choose Create versus Open or when to prefer an alternative.

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