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

The annotations already indicate that this is not read-only and not idempotent, which covers the mutation aspect. The description adds valuable context that it is an internal UI-widget submission and explicitly warns agents, which is transparent about its intended environment and restrictions. It does not detail side effects, but the annotations and the term 'submit' sufficiently imply the action's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the critical usage restriction ('Internal' and 'Not for direct agent use') before stating the action. There is no unnecessary wording, making it highly efficient.

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 description provides essential context about the tool's internal nature and its restriction from agent use, which is critical for safe invocation. Together with the fully described schema parameters and annotations, this gives agents enough information to understand the tool's role. It does not elaborate on the broader workflow (e.g., that it completes a prior request), but this is implied by the tool name and parameters.

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 descriptions for both parameters (values and fillToken) are clear and self-explanatory, covering the required meaning and source of each. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add further parameter detail; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's specific action: submitting a credential-request secret from the Anima UI widget. It distinguishes this from other vault tools by indicating it is internal and not for direct agent use, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Not for direct agent use,' which provides a clear boundary for when not to use it. It also notes that it is used 'from the Anima UI widget,' guiding agents to avoid invoking it directly and to use alternative tools like vault_credential_request_create or status instead.

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