dropyour_secret_deleteDelete a secret from a graduated app's vault by name. Deleting a name that does not exist is not an error — the final state is what you asked for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| dropId | Yes | ||
| managementToken | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations by explicitly stating that deleting a non-existent name is not an error and that the final state is what was requested, which clarifies the idempotent semantics in practical terms.
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 short sentences deliver the core action and the most important behavioral nuance without any filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the idempotency clarification 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?
The tool is simple and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description omits meaningful guidance for two of three parameters, especially `managementToken`. With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition is adequate but leaves notable gaps in parameter understanding.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the `name` parameter. It does not explain `dropId` or the optional `managementToken`, and the schema only provides patterns, not semantic meaning. This leaves significant parameter ambiguity for an agent.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a secret from a graduated app's vault by name.' It clearly identifies the action, the target, and the selection mechanism (name), distinguishing it from related tools like dropyour_secret_set and dropyour_secrets_list.
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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: deleting a secret by name from a graduated app's vault. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the deletion purpose is unambiguous, and the sibling tools list makes the alternatives inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources and actions, and descriptions do a good job separating overlapping areas like call/release/status or read_content/read_app_files. The main risk is momentary confusion between publish/replace/release and the two read-content tools, but careful reading resolves it.
All names share the dropyour_ prefix and use snake_case, but the overall pattern is mixed: read_* and list_versions use verb-first naming, while records_list, secret_set, secret_delete, and secrets_list use noun-first naming, and logs/status/whoami are bare nouns. Still readable, but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
23 tools is on the heavy side for a single server and spans several distinct subdomains: drop lifecycle, graduated apps, data, records, secrets, scheduling, and auth. Each tool appears purposeful, but the surface could reasonably be split into focused servers.
The set covers the full drop lifecycle — publish, replace, release, rollback, delete, status, settings — plus graduated app concerns like files, logs, versions, store records, app data, secrets, and scheduling. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.