create-secret

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds a minimal statement that it creates a secret, which aligns with the annotations. It doesn't go beyond what annotations provide—no mention of side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Since annotations cover the mutation type, a 3 is appropriate, but the description carries little extra weight.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is not verbose and gets straight to the point, though it lacks any additional context that might be useful. It is appropriately sized, but not maximally informative—still earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 tool is a create operation with no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params), the description is minimal but functionally sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, but does not cover edge cases like secretPath defaults or the effect of omitting secretValue. Annotations cover the mutation, but the description does not elaborate on behavior such as whether it overwrites existing secrets. A 3 indicates it is adequate but with gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all five parameters are already described in the input schema. The description itself does not add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so no extra value is added. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 'Create a new secret in Infisical' clearly identifies the verb (create) and the resource (secret), and the context (Infisical). It is specific enough to distinguish it from create-project or create-environment, though it does not differentiate from update-secret by name, but the verb 'create' vs 'update' is sufficient.

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 (creating secrets) and is self-evident given the tool name. However, it does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-secret or delete-secret, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints.

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