Secrets: update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it explains exactly what is destroyed (the old value is lost) and the runtime consequence (workflows referencing the key use the new value from their next run). That is real behavioral context beyond the safety flags.

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: what it does, what it destroys, and the alternative/caution, all front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description covers the action, the destructive side effect, the downstream workflow impact, the sibling alternative, and a user-confirmation caveat. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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; the description nudges above it by clarifying the meaning of `value` in context ('Pass the new value in value'), i.e. it is the replacement credential, not an identifier. It does not, however, clarify the key must pre-exist here versus in the schema.

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 and resource ('Rotate (overwrite) an existing secret value') and immediately disambiguates from the closest sibling by naming `secrets_create` for the non-existent-key case. An agent can distinguish this from secrets_list/secrets_delete without opening a 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 names the alternative ('Use `secrets_create` for a key that doesn't exist yet') with the condition that selects it, and adds a when-to-be-careful rule ('check with the user before running it'). Both routing decisions an agent faces are covered.

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