Prompt a human operator out-of-band to enter a secret directly into client-side WebCrypto encryption, keeping the value out of chat context.
Prompt a human operator out-of-band (OOB) to enter a secret directly into client-side WebCrypto encryption without exposing the value in chat context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| vaultId | No | ||
| folderId | No | ||
| secretId | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| promptMessage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the secret is entered client-side via WebCrypto and never exposed in chat. However, it says nothing about blocking/async behavior, whether a stored secret is created, what happens to the other 6 parameters, or permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the security-critical constraint is stated early. It is efficient, though a second sentence on usage or parameters would have earned more value.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the 'why' but omits essentially everything about parameters, storage side effects, and interaction flow. An agent could not invoke it correctly from this description alone.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains name, tags, vaultId, folderId, secretId, description, or promptMessage, leaving every parameter undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (prompt) plus the actor and mechanism (human operator, out-of-band, client-side WebCrypto), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It distinguishes itself conceptually from generate/store siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 phrase 'without exposing the value in chat context' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings like vault_absorb_credentials or vault_generate_and_store_secret. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.