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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: the value is stored encrypted, is injected as an env var on the next deploy, and is NEVER returned or logged. It also notes the authentication requirement. These details add real operational context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a clear action sentence followed by key behavioral facts. Every clause adds information about security, deployment timing, or authentication, with no filler or repeated schema content.

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?

The description covers the action, input semantics, side effects, security posture, and authentication context. It does not describe the success/error response shape, but given there is no output schema and this is a set operation, the provided information is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by giving realistic examples for key and explaining the secret's lifecycle (encrypted storage, injection on next osirAppDeploy), which deepens the agent's understanding of what key and value mean beyond the schema text.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Set') and a precise resource ('environment secret for an Osir app'), reinforced with concrete examples like DATABASE_URL and API_KEY. It clearly identifies the tool's job and is distinct from sibling osirApp* operations because it targets environment secrets rather than deploys, uploads, or logs.

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 description gives clear context on when this tool applies: setting environment secrets that will be injected on the next osirAppDeploy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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