ci_set_signing_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write behavior (uploading secrets), client-side encryption, and the include_asc_key conditional. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, whether existing secrets are overwritten, or how ASC key values are supplied, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with the key action and destination front-loaded, followed by a compact list of secrets and the one conditional. No filler or redundant restatement of the parameter schema.

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?

Although the surface purpose is clear, the invocation context is missing: repo is optional with no guidance, project_path is unexplained, and the source of ASC_KEY_ID/ASC_ISSUER_ID/ASC_PRIVATE_KEY is not described despite them being referenced. With no output schema or annotations, a caller cannot fully determine prerequisites or behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map the main inputs to destination secrets (P12/PASSWORD/PROFILE_BASE64) and explains the include_asc_key flag, but repo and project_path remain unexplained and their role is left to inference.

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 ('Upload signing material to the repo's GitHub Actions secrets') and enumerates the exact secret names, with a conditional for ASC keys. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling signing_quick_setup by noting it accepts .p12 files exported from anywhere.

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 gives clear context: it is for installing signing material into GitHub Actions secrets and is not limited to files produced by signing_quick_setup. It does not spell out explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules, but the contrast with the sibling tool is implicit and useful.

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