add_credential

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that sensitive field values are read from the service process environment variable at write time, that this is recommended to avoid secrets passing through conversation content, and that all fields are AES-256-GCM encrypted before being stored. These are meaningful security-relevant behaviors beyond what the schema conveys.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, immediately adds the critical env-var pattern, and closes with the encryption guarantee. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given the rich input schema, the description is largely complete for invocation: it covers the creation intent, uniqueness, secret handling, and persistence encryption. It does not describe return values or error behavior, and there is no output schema, but for a create operation these are not significant enough to lower the score further.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that 'env:VAR_NAME' is resolved from the service process environment variable at write time, recommends this pattern for security, and notes that every field is encrypted at rest. These details enhance the semantics of the fields parameter beyond the schema's own explanation.

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 specific verb and resource: '添加一个系统凭据' (add a system credential), with a clear uniqueness constraint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_credential and delete_credential by the action 'add', though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use add_credential versus update_credential, verify_login, get_token, or reveal_secret. It only implies creation by the word '添加' and suggests using 'env:VAR' for sensitive values, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when to use an alternative.

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