delete-secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety information.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though this conciseness comes at the expense of missing contextual information.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how to verify deletion succeeded. Given the complexity and risk of secret management, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured fields. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a secret in Infisical'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update-secret' or explain what distinguishes deletion from updating in this context, which would be helpful for agent selection.

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 'update-secret' or 'create-secret'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for deletion versus other operations, leaving the agent with insufficient decision-making information.

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