Contract Testing: Update Secret

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds that this is an update of existing secret fields, but it does not disclose whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, nor any authentication or failure behavior. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 opening sentence is crisp and front-loaded, and the Toolset label adds helpful organization. However, the full parameter list duplicates the input schema almost verbatim, so not every line earns its place; the description would be stronger without this redundancy.

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 tool is simple: all four parameters are fully documented in the schema, required fields are clear, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. The main gaps are the lack of any note about what happens when secretId does not exist or what the update returns, but for a straightforward update this is not critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter list repeats the same names and descriptions as the schema and adds no deeper meaning about formats, constraints, or relationships between fields.

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 states a clear action and resource: "Update an existing secret's name, value, or description." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_secret, delete_secret, get_secret, and list_secrets by emphasizing "existing" and naming the exact updatable fields.

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 phrase "existing secret" implies the tool should be used when a secret already exists and needs modification, and not for creating new secrets. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like contract-testing_create_secret or explains when to choose this over delete or create, so guidance is only implied.

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