delete_secret_reference

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds concrete downstream consequences not captured by annotations: integrations and virtual keys using the reference will fail to resolve credentials immediately. Reversibility is explicitly stated ('irreversible').

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the permanence and irreversibility front-loaded and the consequence immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the critical missing piece: the blast radius on dependent integrations and virtual keys. Only a note about required permissions is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a UUID or slug. The description adds no additional semantics about the identifier; baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (permanently delete) and resource (Secret Reference), which unambiguously identifies the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_secret_reference or get_secret_reference, but the destructive framing makes the intent clear.

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 instruction to 'confirm dependencies before deletion' implies a prerequisite check, giving some usage context. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., update_secret_reference to rotate rather than delete) or states when deletion is the right choice versus updating.

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