Set a project secret

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint (overwriting) and idempotentHint (safe to retry), which the description echoes by 'create or overwrite'. This adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the overwrite behavior, but does not detail what happens to existing or non-existing 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?

Single sentence, well-front-loaded with verb and object. Could arguably be more concise, but is clear and to the point.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the core action. However, lacks information about permissions, side effects (e.g., triggering rebuilds), or behavior when ref is invalid.

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 each parameter has a description, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'ref' is described as 'Project id or subdomain' in schema; description does not elaborate on format or validation, nor explain dependencies between 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?

Clearly states the tool creates or overwrites an environment secret on a project, with specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'remove_secret' tool, which is obvious given the opposite action.

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 implies usage for setting secrets but provides no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_secrets' or 'remove_secret'. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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