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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavior note — that secret values are not exposed — but says nothing about reversibility, effect on dependent connections, or required permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and the key non-exposure guarantee all land immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there is only one simple scalar parameter. However, for a destructive single-target mutation, the description could have stated whether deactivation is reversible or what happens to consumers of the secret.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, and the description does not clarify that 'name' identifies the secret to deactivate. Only the indirect phrase 'one workspace secret' hints at the parameter's meaning, leaving the identifier semantics largely undocumented.

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 (deactivate) and resource (workspace secret), scoped to a single item via 'one'. It is distinguishable from siblings like secret_rotate or secret_create, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer for related operations.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as secret_rotate or secret_delete. The agent must infer that deactivation is the soft-disable path from the verb alone.

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