create_secret

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and the password/ssh type distinction, but says nothing about sensitivity of the stored value, whether it can be read back, required permissions, or that a repeat call creates a duplicate (non-idempotent).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint. Slight redundancy: 'Create a new secret' is repeated verbatim as the opening of both sentences, and the title annotation duplicates it again.

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 mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers what is created but omits what the response contains and any note about the sensitivity or irreversibility of the stored secret. Adequate but with clear gaps for a credentials-related write operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, type enum, and the value pattern rules. The description paraphrases the same fields ('attributes name, type and value... type can be password or ssh') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new secret') plus the endpoint POST /v1/secrets, and names the three attributes it accepts. The create/retrieve/update/delete siblings are trivially distinguishable from the verb, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 on when to use this versus related tools in a large sibling set (generate_client_secret, reset_password, create_user) and no prerequisites or when-not conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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