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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one valuable trait — the transfer is SERVER-SIDE and the value never enters the conversation — but says nothing about required permissions, whether the source secret is retained or removed, idempotency, or failure behavior for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences: the action is front-loaded, the security property follows immediately, and the example earns its place by grounding the abstract vendor-to-vendor move.

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 nested-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the secret-handling concern well but leaves parameter semantics and side-effect/return behavior thin. No output schema means return values need not be explained, keeping this mid-range.

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% and the parameters are nested objects, so the description must compensate. The example loosely maps 'from' to a source key and 'to' to a destination env var, but never explains the vendor/resource/field vs vendor/resource/key structure, leaving the semantics largely undocumented.

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+resource ('Move a secret from one vendor to another') and clearly separates itself in meaning from sibling secret_generate. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the 'move' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 Supabase-to-Vercel example implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing versus secret_generate/get_vault_link. Usage is conveyed only by example.

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