secret_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does deliver real behavioral facts: the value is persisted, never echoed back, and the name is registered in rules.yaml as a ref only. It still omits overwrite semantics for an existing name and any auth/backend-failure behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause adds non-redundant information (persistence, non-echo, rules.yaml side effect).

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?

Adequate for a 3-param mutation tool with full schema coverage, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should cover more of the write's side effects and failure modes. It covers the headline behaviors without being complete.

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 name, value, and ref with examples. The description adds the ref-only registration detail but no field-level syntax beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Store") and resource ("a secret value") plus the destination ("configured backend"). The store/delete/list/probe distinction from siblings is obvious from the operation named, though no sibling is called out explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus secret_probe, secret_list, or secret_delete, and no prerequisites such as auth or backend-configured state. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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