Delimit Secret Store

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining that the call persists to an at-rest store, enforces scope on later reads, overwrites on re-store with no append-only history, has no network egress or ledger write, and records a WRITE event in the access log. This fully discloses side effects and gives the agent an accurate model of the operation's consequences.

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 structured into clear labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects) and front-loads the core purpose. There is some redundancy between the 'When to use' section and the 'Sibling contrast' paragraph, but every section still adds useful decision-relevant content, and the length is appropriate for a credential-writing tool with side effects.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, sibling routing, parameter behavior, side effects, persistence semantics, and audit implications. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from invoking it.

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 schema already covers all four parameters at 100%, so no parameter documentation burden falls on the description. The description still adds useful meaning by emphasizing that 'value' holds the actual credential, that 'name' acts as the key subject to overwrite on re-store, and that 'scope' is persisted and enforced on subsequent delimit_secret_get calls.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write a credential into the Delimit secrets broker store.' It clearly distinguishes this write tool from its siblings by naming what each sibling does, e.g., delimit_secret_get reads, delimit_secret_list shows metadata only, and delimit_secret_revoke disables.

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?

This is exemplary: it provides explicit 'When to use' context, a typical pairing pattern with delimit_secret_get, and a thorough 'When NOT to use' list naming each alternative tool. It even warns against using the broker as a general-purpose key/value store, which an agent otherwise might assume.

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