Update secret files

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the destructive behavior (existing secret files not included are deleted) and the scope limitation (not for linked environment group secret files). Since destructiveHint=true is already in annotations, the description enriches this with specific consequences and exclusions, providing full transparency.

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 slightly longer but every sentence contributes essential information: the replacement semantics, the deletion warning, the scope exception, the API endpoint, and a usage recommendation. The bolded deletion warning and 'Usage:' section improve skimmability, though the core idea is restated somewhat redundantly.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is replaced, what is deleted, scope boundaries, and recommended pre-reading. It includes the API endpoint and clear usage guidance, making it comprehensive for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so the schema already documents both body and serviceId. The description adds minimal extra insight beyond calling body 'the provided list of secret files', but does not elaborate on the structure of the array or the meaning of name/content. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: replacing all secret files for a service with a provided list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like render_add_or_update_secret_file and render_delete_secret_file by emphasizing full replacement, and it identifies the specific API endpoint.

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?

Provides strong usage guidance: explicitly states that omitted files will be deleted, advises reading the current set with render_list_secret_files_for_service first, and clarifies that it only applies to direct secret files, not environment group secrets. This effectively tells the agent when and how to use this tool safely.

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