store_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions encryption (AES-256-GCM), which is helpful, but does not disclose whether storing a duplicate label overwrites the existing secret, size limits, idempotency, or whether the operation returns a confirmation ID or object.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and encryption method. 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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to reference the stored secret later, or any constraints (e.g., overwriting behavior). For a store operation, additional details are necessary for a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic term 'secret'. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Store') and specifies the resources ('API key, access token, or other secret') with encryption details (AES-256-GCM). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'store_credentials' by focusing on generic secrets rather than credentials tied to a service.

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 implies usage when you need to store a secret securely, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'store_credentials' or when not to use it. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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