Contract Testing: Delete Secret

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

The description simply restates 'Delete' and gives the parameter, which adds nothing beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects dependent resources like webhooks, or whether any special authorization is required. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description contributes little behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The separate 'Toolset' and 'Parameters' sections are mildly redundant with the schema, but they do not create meaningful bloat. Overall, it is appropriately concise for a single-parameter tool.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations cover the basic call correctly. However, it omits useful context such as irreversibility, behavior when the secret does not exist, or any relation to other secret operations. It is adequate but not rich.

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 input schema already describes secretId as a required UUID with 100% coverage. The description repeats this information without adding further semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 operation and resource: 'Delete a secret by UUID.' This is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and to distinguish it from sibling operations like get_secret, create_secret, and update_secret, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other secret-related or deletion tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or references to alternatives such as contract-testing_delete_webhook or contract-testing_delete_environment. The operation is inferable but not explicitly contextualized.

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