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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: no input accepts a value, no result contains one, the Console-link flow creates nothing until the user saves, and access must be granted separately. It does not, however, address the implication of idempotentHint=true on repeated creates with the same immutable name.

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 core guarantee (values never traverse the chat) leads, followed by mode semantics, then consumption. Individual sentences are information-rich, though the run-on closing sentence about cpln:// references and grant tools is slightly compressed.

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, and the description still covers the two operating modes, the secrecy invariant, what gets created when, and how the secret is subsequently consumed. Everything an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains what 'generate' vs 'user' do to the result, clarifies that keys prefill the Console form in user mode, and reinforces that names are immutable. This goes past restating the schema without fully re-documenting all 8 parameters.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Create an org-scoped secret.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling secret tools by stating a defining property (values never pass through the chat), so an agent can tell it apart from rotate_secret or add_database without further reading.

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?

Gives explicit mode-selection guidance ('generate' for values nobody needs to know, 'user' for values only the user has) with concrete examples, states an exclusion (databases via add_database get credentials without this tool), and names the downstream siblings (deploy_app, grant_workload_secret_access) needed to actually consume the secret.

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