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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Encrypted" and the tenant scoping are useful context (though partially restated in the schema), but key behaviors are absent: whether setting an existing name overwrites, idempotency, required permissions, and failure modes.

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 efficient sentence with the critical constraint (tenant namespace scoping) front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is brief enough that it arguably trades away needed context.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema should at least say what happens on overwrite and what is returned. The schema covers parameters well, but the behavioral profile of a secret-write operation is essentially undocumented.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the secret.<name> reference syntax, the AES-256-GCM storage, and the tenant_key/Bearer-header precedence rule. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema supplies, so the 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?

Specific verb ("Store") plus resource ("encrypted secret value") and an explicit scope ("under this tenant's namespace"). It is clearly a write counterpart to the sibling host.secret_list, though it does not name or contrast with that sibling directly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that host.secret_list is the read-side counterpart. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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