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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses encrypted storage, deferred injection timing, that the value is NEVER returned or logged, and that authentication is required. This goes far beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, key behavioral notes second, required arguments and authentication last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, storage, deployment timing, security handling, required arguments, and authentication. It omits only minor details such as overwrite semantics and exact response shape.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for key ('env var name', examples) and lists the required parameters, but appId and value receive only type labels. It partially compensates but does not fully document all parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set an environment secret for an Osir app,' and gives concrete examples like DATABASE_URL and API_KEY. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling app-management tools by focusing on secret injection.

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?

It states when the secret takes effect ('injected as an env var on the next osirAppDeploy'), which tells an agent to call this before deploying. It also notes authentication is required. It does not list exclusions, but no competing secret-setting sibling exists.

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