Set project secrets

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

Beyond the minimal destructiveHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: values are stored encrypted, never returned, and the project is re-published by default. It also warns the agent not to fabricate values, which is critical for correct use.

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 efficient sentences deliver purpose, key behavioral caveats, and an explicit user-interaction requirement. There is no fluff, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and only a minimal annotation, the description covers the essential operational details: what it saves, security properties, the publish side effect, and the requirement to source values from the user. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 documents most parameters well, and the description reinforces the secrets object and publish behavior with meaningful context such as encryption and non-return. It adds value beyond the schema, though it does not deeply elaborate every parameter.

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 tool saves environment variables for a project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling netrun_publish even though it mentions re-publishing as a side effect.

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?

It provides clear practical guidance: ask the user for secret values and do not invent them. It also notes the default re-publish behavior, giving context for when this tool has broader effects, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative.

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