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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it clarifies that `values` replaces all entries (the source of the destructive behavior) while the patch params are non-destructive, and it discloses the lead-builder role requirement for shared secrets. No contradiction with the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the replace/patch distinction, then the auth constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the risky parts (replace vs patch, role requirement) well enough to call safely. Gaps remain for `name` and `service_slug`, but the critical behavioral facts are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain `values`, `rename_keys`, `remove_keys`, and `add_values` semantically (replace vs patch), and hints at `shared` via 'toggling sharing', but leaves `name` and `service_slug` unexplained across 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an env-var secret'), which cleanly separates it from createSecret, deleteSecret, getSecret, and listSecrets without the agent needing to open any schema. The scope is 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?

Explains the two invocation modes clearly: send `values` to replace everything, or use the patch params for a non-destructive update. It also flags the role prerequisite for shared-secret edits. It stops short of naming alternative tools for adjacent tasks, but the mode selection guidance is solid.

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