update_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 disclose real behaviour: it is a mutation, it is field-scoped rather than whole-object, it uses optimistic concurrency via the expected version, and it will not silently clobber a conflicting value without authorisation. It still leaves open what happens on version mismatch (error vs. merge) and what permissions are required.

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 short sentences, both load-bearing, with the scope and the concurrency rule front-loaded. No filler or marketing language.

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 a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers intent and conflict policy but omits auth requirements, mismatch behaviour, and id-vs-name resolution. Adequate to attempt the call, not enough to predict its failure modes.

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. It effectively explains 'field' and 'expected_version' semantics, but 'id_or_name' (id vs. name resolution) and the null-default behaviour of the optional 'field' param are never addressed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update one explicitly selected secret field') and adds a real constraint: a single field only, using its current metadata version. It is clearly distinct from create_secret or reveal_secret, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

'Using its current metadata version' implies get_secret_metadata must be called first, and the authorisation caveat hints at the conflict path, but neither is stated as an instruction. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over migrate_secret or create_secret.

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