Secrets: create

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

Annotations cover the non-destructive, non-open-world safety profile, and the description adds material context beyond them: the value is encrypted, scoped to the project, referenced as {{ $anythink.secrets.KEY }}, and can never be read back. That write-once permanence is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the storage/reference behavior, then the sibling routing. No filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: durability, encryption, reference syntax, required inline value, and the correct alternative tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains why `value` must be supplied inline (the hidden prompt cannot be answered by a tool) and shows how the `key` becomes the reference token in workflows.

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+resource ('Store a new secret value') and immediately scopes it against the sibling 'secrets_update'. An agent can distinguish create from update/list/delete without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to create, use `secrets_update` to change an existing secret, and pass the value in `value` rather than relying on a prompt. Both the when and the alternative are named.

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