_mcp_encrypt_deliverable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the key is returned only once and never persisted, which is critical security-related behavior. However, it does not mention whether files are modified in place, or if the operation is reversible, leaving gaps.

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 single sentence, which is concise, but it omits necessary detail about parameters and usage. It is front-loaded with key info, but at the expense of completeness.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It fails to explain the parameters or the structure of the output, making it incomplete.

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 explain parameters. It does not mention 'paths' or 'output_dir' at all, forcing the agent to guess their meaning. This is a significant failure.

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 explicitly states the tool encrypts deliverable file(s) with AES-256-GCM, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like _mcp_sign_document or _mcp_upload_deliverable by focusing on encryption.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios to avoid. The description is solely about what it does, not context of use.

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