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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a critical behavioral distinction: this is a genuine, immediate, hard deletion rather than a soft delete. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about irreversibility and intent, though permissions or error behavior are not covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a valuable behavioral nuance. No wasted words, and the key differentiator is placed prominently.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and behavioral nuance well, and annotations handle the safety profile. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics (0% schema coverage) is a notable completeness gap that the description does not address.

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 description coverage is 0% for the sole parameter secret_id, and the description provides no information about what secret_id represents (e.g., name, ID, format). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving semantics unclear.

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 ('Delete a secret') and immediately distinguishes the operation from the platform's soft delete. An agent can tell it apart from sibling delete tools and understand the action 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?

The second sentence implies a use case (a revoked credential must not outlive its revocation) and contrasts with the usual soft delete, giving implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_secret, nor does it outline any prerequisites or exclusions.

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