create_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: secrets are global, creation occurs in the 'active provider', and space_id is deprecated. It says nothing about permissions, whether the value is stored encrypted, what happens on duplicate name collision, or what the call returns (no output schema exists), which is a meaningful gap for a write tool handling secrets.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the duplicate-check workflow, then the scope constraint, then parameter notes. Every sentence conveys something, though the phrasing is telegraphic enough that 'Defaults to the active provider' could have been clearer than 'in the active provider'.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the important global scope and deprecation details but leaves the majority of parameters and the entire return contract unexplained. It is adequate to avoid gross misuse but not complete enough to call correctly without studying the schema.

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 compensate and it only partly does: folder_id's empty-string-vs-omission distinction and space_id's deprecation are genuinely additive facts not present in the schema. The remaining parameters — uri, value, username, description, and especially value_type with its 7-value enum — receive no semantic guidance at all.

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 verb 'Create' plus the tool name and the scope qualifier 'in the active provider' make the action unambiguous, and 'Secrets are global' distinguishes it from anything workspace-scoped. It does not explicitly contrast itself with update_secret or the other write siblings, but the operation is easy to place.

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?

'Create ... after searching for duplicates' gives a concrete pre-step that maps to the search_secrets sibling, so an agent knows the intended workflow order. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when a different write tool (update_secret, migrate_secret) should be chosen instead, so no explicit exclusions exist.

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