Secrets: delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of irreversibility, no confirmation that missing keys error, no permission requirements — so it earns little credit.

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 words with zero waste, but the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a destructive operation. It is front-loaded but trivially so.

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 destructive, irreversible operation with no output schema, the agent needs to know what gets destroyed and whether the action is recoverable. The description supplies none of that, nor any scoping context, leaving a real gap despite the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter is documented as "Secret key name to delete", so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no format, scope, or casing details beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

"Delete a secret" names a specific verb and resource, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like secrets_list or secrets_create. However it offers no scope details (which secret store, per-project vs global) and no differentiation language beyond the name itself, so it stays at minimum-viable clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus secrets_update (e.g. to clear a value) or when deletion is inappropriate. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the verb and the required key parameter.

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