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

Annotations already flag this as a non-readOnly, destructive operation; the description adds substantive context on top: the call triggers a service reload (an operational side effect), and values are never echoed back, so an agent knows it cannot verify what it wrote. It does not spell out reload downtime or whether unnamed existing values are preserved.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the irreversibility note. No padding or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, so the remaining burden is scope and safety, which the description largely covers. The one gap is whether values merge with or replace existing stored values, and whether the reload disrupts the live service.

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 50% with serviceId documented but the values object undocumented. The description compensates by explaining the acceptance rule for each key (declared secret in the deployed config or previously stored value), which is semantic knowledge the schema's regex pattern cannot convey.

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 one or more environment values by name and reload the service'), which cleanly separates it from the read-only list_env sibling. It does not name the sibling, but the write vs. list distinction is obvious from the wording.

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?

Provides a real precondition for when a name is accepted (declared in handsome.json's secrets array, or already stored), which is useful selection guidance. However, it never says when not to use it, whether to check list_env first, or how it differs from alternatives beyond the implicit store/list split.

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