delete_secret_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety aspects are covered. The description adds nothing beyond the operation name - it does not disclose what happens to dependent agents or resources (notably a get_secret_dependencies_route sibling exists), whether deletion is reversible, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded phrase with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than concise coverage.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and an undocumented identifier, the description is too thin. It omits dependency/cascade behavior (relevant given get_secret_dependencies_route), confirmation semantics, and any parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 there is one required parameter (secret_id). The description never references the parameter, its format, or where the ID comes from, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Convai Workspace Secret), scoping it to the correct workspace. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_secret_route or get_secret_route, but the delete action 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (update_secret_route, create_secret_route, get_secret_dependencies_route), no prerequisites, and no warning about what a delete implies. The agent gets a purpose but no situational direction.

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