updateSecretUpdate an env-var secret. Send values to replace all entries, or any of rename_keys, remove_keys, add_values for a non-destructive patch. Editing a team-shared secret or toggling sharing requires manager role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| shared | No | ||
| values | No | ||
| add_values | No | ||
| remove_keys | No | ||
| rename_keys | No | ||
| service_slug | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these flags: it discloses that `values` is a full replacement (destructive to existing entries) while the patch parameters are non-destructive, and it mentions the manager role requirement for team-shared secrets. No contradiction.
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?
Three sentences deliver the essential information without fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the two usage modes, and the third adds a role-based caveat. 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?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description captures the primary behavior and role constraints, but leaves gaps: it does not explain the effect of `name`, `shared` in detail, or what `service_slug` does. Given the complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description could be more complete to fully guide an agent.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains `values`, `rename_keys`, `remove_keys`, and `add_values` semantics, but omits `name`, `shared` (only implied via 'toggling sharing'), and `service_slug` entirely. With 8 parameters, this partial coverage is not fully sufficient, but it adds meaningful value for the core operations.
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 opens with 'Update an env-var secret', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly separates this from sibling tools like createSecret, deleteSecret, and getSecret. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.
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 explicit guidance on how to use the tool's parameters: 'Send `values` to replace all entries, or any of `rename_keys`, `remove_keys`, `add_values` for a non-destructive patch.' It also notes role requirements for shared secrets, giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the intent is clear enough for a 4.
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.