update-secret

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'update'. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description itself does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, or requirements. It neither enriches nor contradicts the annotations.

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, compact sentence with no waste. The core action and object are front-loaded, so an agent can grasp the tool's purpose in under a second.

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 that this is a destructive, parameter-rich mutation with no output schema, the description is too thin. It should mention that the secret must already exist, that values/names are overwritten, and any preconditions around renaming or environment/path context.

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 the description contributes no additional parameter-level insight. The baseline of 3 applies; the schema already explains what each parameter is for.

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 states a specific verb ('update') and a resource ('a secret in Infisical'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create-secret, delete-secret, and get-secret based on the operation alone.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the other secret-related tools. It implies updating an existing secret, but it doesn't state prerequisites or when a user should choose this over create-secret or get-secret.

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