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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds an important fact—values are AES-256-GCM encrypted at rest—which is non-obvious and useful. However, it does not mention whether storing a secret overwrites an existing one, required permissions, or any side effects, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, immediately front-loads the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids fluff and technical repetition while providing useful context about keys and encryption.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, encryption, and common usage examples. It does not explain return values or address optional parameters like environment, but the schema descriptions fill some gaps, making it reasonably complete for a store operation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining common key names and their contexts (e.g., LOGIN_PASSWORD for B2B shop auth), which helps users choose appropriate parameter values beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states the tool stores an encrypted secret in a target's vault, using a specific verb ('store') and resource ('encrypted secret' in 'target's vault'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_secret and rotate_secret, and the mention of common keys adds further clarity.

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 implies when to use the tool (storing secrets) and gives common key examples with context ('B2B shop auth', 'GA4 monitoring'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since no exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided, it only offers implied usage guidance.

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