secret_remove

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical nuance: removal does not immediately affect running service tasks; they retain access until restarted or updated. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent predict the real-world impact, making it a genuinely transparent description.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second paragraph adds an important behavioral caveat and usage workflow, and the args/returns block is compact. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with subtle operational implications, the description covers the prerequisite, the delayed effect on running tasks, a practical pre-check workflow, parameter semantics, and return value. Combined with the annotations and output schema, the agent has all necessary information to invoke safely and 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'id_or_name - The secret id or name to remove' fully explains the only parameter, including that both IDs and names are accepted. It also documents the return value, which is useful context.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Remove a Swarm secret') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like secret_create, secret_inspect, and secret_list. It also adds the prerequisite context ('requires a swarm manager'), which helps situate the tool within Docker Swarm operations.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('requires a swarm manager') and provides a concrete pre-removal workflow: use service_list and service_inspect to identify services that mount the secret. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative for removal, but it gives clear context for when and how this tool should be used.

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