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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the transfer happens server-side and the secret value never enters the conversation, which is a meaningful security trait not encoded in the annotations. It stops short of explaining whether the source secret is removed or what permissions are required.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core behavior and the server-side guarantee front-loaded before the illustrative example. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation in the schema, so the description should do more. It covers the big behavioral idea but omits whether the source secret is deleted (move vs copy), which vendors are supported, and what auth or error conditions apply, leaving gaps for a destructive cross-vendor mutation.

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 both parameters are nested objects, so the description must carry the load. The example maps the concepts reasonably well (source = Supabase service_role key, destination = Vercel env var), but it never explains the distinction between the source's 'field' and the destination's 'key', nor what 'resource' denotes, leaving the nested fields ambiguous.

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 (move) and resource (a secret) plus the scope (from one vendor to another, server-side), which is far more informative than a tautology. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as secret_generate or get_vault_link, so it falls short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.

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 conveys an implied use case (relocating a credential to a new deployment target), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives like secret_generate or vendor_call. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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