secrets_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the encryption approach ('per-secret derived encryption keys') and the required permission ('secrets.write'), which is helpful. However, it omits critical behaviors like what happens if a secret with the same name already exists (overwrite vs error) and what the tool returns. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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 extremely concise, with three short sentences that front-load the core purpose first. Every sentence adds value: purpose, encryption detail, and permission requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and good schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose and a security detail. However, without an output schema, it does not explain return values, and it fails to address the overwrite/replace semantics for existing secret names. These are important gaps that a complete description should cover.

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 the input schema fully documents all three parameters (name, value, metadata). The description adds no additional parameter-level details or usage nuances, so it does not go beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Store a secret in the encrypted vault.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_list or secrets_delete, and the permission requirement further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage for storing secrets, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as secrets_delete or secrets_update. The mention of the required permission is more of an access constraint than a usage guideline.

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