detachRevisionSecretDetach an env-var secret from a revision. Personal secrets can only be detached 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation/destruction aspect. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations, explaining the permission model for personal vs. team-shared secrets. It also clarifies the scope ('from a revision') which is not fully captured by the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential permission detail. Two sentences, no redundancy or fluff. Every sentence carries meaningful information.
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 a destructive mutation with 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and permissions but lacks parameter explanations and what happens after detachment (e.g., whether it is reversible, what the secret's status becomes). The idempotency is declared in annotations, but the description does not discuss the effect on the secret itself. Overall, adequate but with clear gaps in parameter mapping and operational behavior.
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 does not explain the three parameters (agentId, buildId, credentialId). The tool name and description imply that agentId and buildId identify the revision and credentialId identifies the secret, but the mapping is not explicit. An agent may not know exactly what to pass, especially since 'credentialId' is not explicitly described as the secret identifier. 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 action: 'Detach an env-var secret from a revision.' This distinguishes it from related tools like attachRevisionSecret (opposite operation) and detachRevisionLogin (detaching a login instead of a secret). The verb 'detach' and the resource 'env-var secret from a revision' are specific and 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 provides clear context on when this tool can be used by specifying permission requirements: 'Personal secrets can only be detached by their owner; team-shared secrets require builder permissions.' This guides an agent on authorization prerequisites, implicitly telling it to avoid calling unless the user has the right role. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.
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.