burn-once-secret-vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the encryption algorithm, single-use race-free delivery via Durable Object, Ed25519-signed attestations, payment requirements, chain details, and automatic payment from BASE_PRIVATE_KEY. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond what any schema could 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?

Four dense sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, delivery guarantee, payment model, and body-field documentation. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and wastes no words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: encryption, single-use semantics, attestation, cost, payment source, and where to find request-body fields. The only minor gap is that it doesn't inline the actual body fields, but the provided OpenAPI URL adequately closes that gap.

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 zero formal parameters and is open, so the description cannot rely on schema documentation. It explicitly states that request body fields are tool-specific and provides a direct URL to the OpenAPI spec, giving the agent a way to resolve exact parameter semantics. It doesn't list the fields inline, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names a specific verb ('Store'), a concrete resource ('a secret'), and the key behavior ('claim URL that yields the secret exactly once'). This clearly differentiates it from the unrelated sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explains when this tool is relevant and gives operational context: creating a vault requires x402 payment, claiming is free, and costs are paid automatically. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are functionally unrelated, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary.

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