secret_remove

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: removing a secret does not immediately affect running tasks that already have it mounted. It also notes the return value is a bool. This meaningfully complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and well-organized: an action statement, a behavior warning, a recommended inspection workflow, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

The description covers the operation, prerequisite, side effects, pre-removal inspection guidance, parameter meaning, and return type. Combined with the existing annotations, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema only declares id_or_name as a string, giving no semantic meaning. The description fills that gap by stating it accepts 'The secret id or name to remove', which is exactly what an agent needs to know to supply the parameter correctly.

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 opens with 'Remove a Swarm secret', identifying a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like secret_list, secret_inspect, and secret_create because it names the exact operation and object.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite 'requires a swarm manager' and gives a concrete pre-removal workflow: use service_list and service_inspect to find services mounting the secret, since service filters do not support secret references. This is actionable usage guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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