delete-secret

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as what happens to associated data or whether the deletion is permanent. Given the annotations cover the destructive nature, the description doesn't contradict them, but it also fails to add meaningful value beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentence (six words) that is concise and front-loads the core action. It has zero fluff and clearly states the tool's purpose in minimal words. This is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation.

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 tool with no output schema and no additional annotations explaining side effects, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the basic action and parameters are fully described in the schema, but it does not warn about irreversible consequences or provide usage examples. Given the tool's destructive nature and low complexity, a bit more context (e.g., confirmation of permanent deletion) would improve completeness.

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 parameters are described in the schema. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. Since the schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter, including defaults (e.g., secretPath defaults to /), the description adds no additional value, but the bar is met with the schema.

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 the resource ('a secret in Infisical'), which is specific enough to understand the tool's core purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'create-secret' or 'update-secret' beyond the verb, which is already evident from the name. Still, it is clear and not a tautology.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as requiring appropriate permissions, or warn about destructive consequences like irreversible data loss. The presence of sibling tools like 'create-secret' and 'update-secret' implies a shared context but no explicit routing is provided.

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