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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a consequence annotations cannot express: readers using Secret.Read will fail from their next call onward, which is meaningful impact context.

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?

Highly economical and front-loaded: consequence of deletion is stated before the usage caveat. Some sentences are telegraphic fragments ('With feature, from that feature's copy instead'), which slightly hurts readability.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect on readers, the usage constraint, and the feature-copy option, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits auth/permission detail, though the schema supplies the editor key.

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 coverage is 100%, so name, feature, and privateKey are all documented in the schema. The description adds only a light gloss on 'feature' ('from that feature's copy instead'), matching the schema text rather than extending it, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Remove a secret') and immediately qualifies scope with the feature-copy variant. It does not name sibling tools like set_secret or delete_feature to route between them, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly constrains when to use it ('Only when the user asks for it, or a secret you stored yourself is no longer used'), which is real use/when-not guidance rarely seen. It does not name an alternative tool, only the feature-parameter variant.

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