put_worker_secret

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

The description adds significant value beyond annotations by explaining the human-approval gate (confirm:true) and the preview mode. Annotations indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description aligns and elaborates on these traits.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key behavioral requirement (confirm:true) is front-loaded, making it immediately actionable.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the critical behavioral aspect (confirm gate) and preview mode. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though could include more about return values or error handling.

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%, providing parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning specifically for the confirm parameter, explaining its role as a gate and preview behavior. Other parameters are covered by the schema, so the description adds marginal but useful context.

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?

Clearly states 'Create or update a secret binding on a Worker script,' specifying the verb (create/update), resource (secret binding), and scope (Worker script). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_worker_secret and other create tools.

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?

Explicitly mentions the confirm:true requirement for actual execution and the preview behavior without it. Provides clear context for when to use, though no explicit alternatives are named given sibling tools are different resources.

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