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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds only the 'Members' permission hint; it does not disclose the notable behavior that this is a non-idempotent write that likely overwrites an existing secret with the same name, nor anything about secret handling or visibility defaults.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but the brevity is achieved by omission rather than economy — the most decision-relevant facts (overwrite behavior, expiry, sharing) are absent.

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?

A 5-parameter write tool with no output schema and no documented parameters needs substantially more than one sentence. The agent cannot tell what happens on conflict with an existing secret, what the share/expiry options do, or what is returned after the write.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely maps to two of them ('value' via the credential examples, 'space' via 'for the space') and says nothing about 'name', the 'share' enum (members/none), or 'expires_in_s' — the expiry and sharing semantics are entirely invisible to the caller.

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 the core action: store a credential ('API key, token or password') scoped to a space, which is enough to distinguish it from space_secret_get/delete/list. However, 'keep' is a soft verb and it never clarifies create-vs-overwrite semantics, nor does it differentiate from space_secret_grant, which also handles secrets.

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?

'Members:' hints at a permission precondition but is not a usage rule, and there is no statement of when to call this versus space_secret_grant, space_secret_revoke, or space_set. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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