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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the server never sees plaintext and recipients must include the pushing device's own pubkey. However, it does not describe side effects like what happens if the alias already exists, whether it overwrites, or error scenarios. This is moderate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 description covers the essential purpose and security requirements, but given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), it lacks details on return values, error handling, and preconditions. It is adequate for understanding the core operation but not fully complete.

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. It adds meaning for ciphertext_b64 ('Ciphertext only') and recipients ('must include the pushing device's own pubkey'), but leaves alias, kind, device_id, and client_hlc without any explanation. Given six parameters, this is insufficient to guide an agent on parameter construction.

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 uses a specific verb 'Push' with a clear resource 'client-encrypted secret,' and the constraints (ciphertext only, server never sees plaintext) clarify the exact action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like env_sync.secret_pull and env_sync.secret_rotate by focusing on pushing a new secret.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to push a new client-encrypted secret. It provides context that this is for new secrets and emphasizes the encryption model, but does not explicitly state 'use this instead of pull/rotate' or give when-not-to-use conditions. The intended usage is strongly implied, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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