store_secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic store action and a reference workflow, but does not reveal key behaviors such as whether existing secrets are overwritten, any permission requirements, or what the response/return value looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long and immediately communicates the core action and a key follow-up usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple store operation, the description explains the purpose and how the stored secret is consumed. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks information on edge cases (e.g., overwriting, errors) and security context, making it adequate but not 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%, with each parameter (name, value, tags) already having a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the explanatory weight.

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 clearly states the verb 'Store' and the resource 'a secret in the credentials broker', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the secret can later be referenced with get_secret, which positions store_secret as the write counterpart.

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 provides clear context by indicating the workflow: store a secret, then reference it via get_secret. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or discuss alternatives like mint_token or revoke_token, so it stops short of full guidance.

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