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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the value is sealed and never readable back, only the lambda reads it starting from its next call, no deploy is required, secrets must be enabled first via enable_data, feature scoping writes to a feature's copy, and there is a 100-secret / 32 KB quota. This is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary action and its contract come first, then caveats and quota. The feature/sandbox sentence is slightly telegraphic ('With feature, into that feature's copy'), but overall each 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating that the value cannot be read back, implying a write-only acknowledgement. Prerequisites, scoping, and limits are all covered; only the exact success/failure response shape is left implicit.

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 the schema carries the baseline, but the description still adds meaning: it explains why the name matters (read via Secret.Read("NAME")), that feature stores a sandbox copy for trying things out, and that the value is the user-supplied one. Modest but genuine value beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Store a secret') plus the exact code-level contract (Secret.Read("NAME")), and it is trivially distinguishable from delete_secret and list_secrets in the sibling set. An agent knows what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Only set a value the user gave you for this: when you do not have it, write the code with Secret.Read and tell the user to set it under Data > Secrets'. It also names the relevant alternatives (read_lambda, list_secrets) and the prerequisite (enable_data).

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