Update secret files

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

The description explicitly warns about the deletion of existing secret files not included in the request, which is crucial behavioral information. Annotations include idempotentHint but no destructiveHint, so the description adds valuable context. It also specifies the HTTP method (PUT) and scope limitation.

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 concise at four sentences. It is front-loaded with the key action and warning. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the title, but overall there is minimal fluff.

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 bulk replace operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main effect, destructive behavior, scope, and API endpoint. It does not describe response format, but that is acceptable given no output schema.

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%, and the description adds meaning by explaining that the body array represents the new set of secret files and that omitted ones are deleted. This goes beyond the schema's bare 'Request body' description for the body parameter.

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 verb (update/replace), resource (secret files), and scope (for a service). It distinguishes from environment group secret files and siblings like render_add_or_update_secret_file and render_delete_secret_file by emphasizing that this is a bulk replace operation that deletes omitted files.

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 explains when to use this tool (to replace all secret files for a service) and clarifies that it does not affect environment group secret files. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context from sibling tools provides implicit guidance.

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