save_generated_secret

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing E2E encryption, automatic custom field setting, collision errors, READ_ONLY blocking, and DRY_RUN logging. This gives rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false matches write operation).

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 a well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then efficiently adds constraints and side effects. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 most important aspects: purpose, constraints, side effects, and error behavior. It lacks explicit mention of return value or success response, which is notable since no output schema exists. However, for a save tool, the return value may be implicitly understood, so this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so per rubric baseline is 3. The description adds some context about automatic custom fields (mcp-expires-at, mcp-used-in) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. It repeats some schema info but does not compensate for any missing details.

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 clearly states the tool saves an agent-generated secret into the mcp-agent-created collection, with specific resource scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'save_login_item', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation. The verb 'Save' and resource are specific.

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 clear context: it is CREATE-only and cannot overwrite, and it mentions conditions like READ_ONLY=1 and DRY_RUN=1. It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies usage for new secrets only, which is clear enough for an agent.

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