Store a secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful detail ('The value is never returned') but omits critical traits such as overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions required, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, consisting of two short sentences that each add value. It front-loads the core action and appends a key behavioral note, with 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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify whether storing an existing name overwrites or errors, how the 'project' parameter affects behavior, or what a successful call returns (beyond noting the value itself is never returned). This leaves significant gaps for safe usage.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (name, value, project). It neither lists them nor describes their meaning, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema constraints like the name pattern and value minLength, which is not enough.

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 function: 'Encrypt and store a secret value.' It uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('secret value'), and explicitly notes that the value is never returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like listSecrets and runWithSecrets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rotateSecret or deleteSecret. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate use cases, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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