attachRevisionSecretAttach an env-var secret to a revision so its keys are injected into Runs spawned from that revision. Personal secrets can only be attached by their owner; team-shared secrets require builder permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | ||
| buildId | Yes | ||
| credentialId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about permission constraints (owner vs. builder permissions), which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether attaching is reversible or what happens on conflict.
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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and adds permission context without fluff. Every sentence 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?
With no output schema, no annotations describing behavior beyond flags, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain more—such as what response to expect, whether multiple secrets can be attached, or what constitutes a valid credentialId. The permission note helps but is insufficient for a mutating tool with three required UUID 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, but it does not explain the roles of agentId, buildId, or credentialId beyond implying they identify the revision and secret. It doesn't clarify that credentialId likely refers to a secret's credential, or how the three parameters relate. This is a significant gap.
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 attaches an env-var secret to a revision for key injection into Runs, which is a specific verb+resource+outcome. It differentiates from siblings like attachRevisionIntegrations and attachRevisionLogin by focusing on secrets, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.
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 implies usage context (when attaching secrets to revisions) and mentions permission requirements for personal vs. team-shared secrets, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides some guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.