auth_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the value is never echoed back and that only masked metadata is returned, which is important security behavior. However, it does not specify error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 tightly organized with separate sections for Args and Returns, using short lines and no redundant text. Each sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy to scan and parse.

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?

With 3 parameters, an output schema present, and no annotations, the description provides enough to select and use the tool correctly. It covers purpose, argument semantics, and return behavior. It omits edge-case behavior like what happens if a name already exists, but that is minor given the 'create or update' phrasing.

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 description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description is the sole source of parameter semantics. It provides meaningful details: name is unique with examples, value is secret and not echoed, description is optional and used for human-readable notes. This far exceeds the schema's bare type definitions.

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 'Create or update an API key / credential in the vault' which is a specific verb (create/update) with a resource (API key/credential) and location (vault). This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_list, auth_get, and auth_delete that have different actions.

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 for storing new credentials or updating existing ones, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use auth_get to retrieve' or 'do not use for deletion'. Clear context is provided, but no when-not guidance.

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