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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact blast radius (all versions and project grants), the irrecoverability of the ciphertext, and the preconditions that cause the call to fail. This is precisely the extra context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 sentences, no filler. The destruction scope is front-loaded ahead of the blocking condition, so the highest-risk fact is read first.

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 two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and the conditions under which the call is refused. Nothing material is missing.

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% and both parameters (orgID, secretID) are fully documented with patterns, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed.

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 (deletes) and resource (the secret), and immediately scopes it as a cascading hard delete of all versions and project grants. This is clearly distinguishable from secrets_update/secrets_get and from grant_secrets_delete, which manipulates grants rather than 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?

Provides an explicit when-not condition: deletion is blocked while the secret backs a model provider config, machine pool, or integration. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., grant_secrets_delete for revoking access without destroying the secret), so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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