secrets_expire

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the key side effect (refusal of proxy injection after expiry) and a permission requirement. It does not mention reversibility or effects on existing secrets, but the core behavior is well covered.

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, then the consequence, and ends with the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, behavioral outcome, and required permission. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it omits edge cases like whether a TTL can be extended.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (name and ttlMinutes), so the description does not need to add detail. The baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, and the description offers no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 sets a time-to-live on a secret, which is a specific verb+resource. It also highlights the consequence ('After expiry, proxy injection will refuse to use it'), distinguishing it from sibling secret tools like secrets_store, secrets_list, and secrets_delete.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires secrets.write') and implies the tool is used for temporary secret validity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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