vault_delete_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a required permission, a human-confirmation gate, and the not-yet-executed return state. It omits whether deletion is permanent/soft and whether retrying is safe, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, action and scope front-loaded, with the precondition and failure branch following. No filler.

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, unannotated, output-schema-less tool, the description covers permissions, the confirmation gate, and the pending state. It leaves the completion path (which sibling confirms) and irreversibility unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the confirmationToken's role in the confirmation exchange, but leaves secretId and the token's format/lifetime undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a secret item from the vault'), immediately distinguishable from read siblings like vault_get_secret and vault_lease_secret. It does not name a specific sibling or overlap case, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States the prerequisite scope ('secrets:delete') and the out-of-band human confirmation requirement, and explains the unconfirmed branch via a returned confirmationToken. That gives clear context for when this tool is the right call, though it never names vault_confirm_action as the follow-up step.

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