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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the required delete right and the cascade effect that all grants on the secret are terminated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the prerequisite and the effect, with no filler. Nothing here is redundant.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description covers the consequence but not irreversibility (is the secret value unrecoverable?), scope resolution (which space), or error behavior when the delete right is absent.

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 description never maps 'space' or 'name' to meaning (which space scopes the secret, whether name is the secret identifier). With zero coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('remove a shared secret') plus a consequence ('end every grant on it'), which is more informative than the bare name. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling space_secret_revoke, so an agent must infer that revoke ends one grant while this destroys the secret itself.

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 only guidance is a permission prerequisite ('Needs the delete right'), not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to choose this over space_secret_revoke, which is the genuinely ambiguous call here.

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