abx_put_action_secrets_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it doesn't say whether a PUT fully replaces the secret (omitted fields cleared), what happens to the encrypted flag, or what the response contains. The nested schema description 'Action secret to create' for a PUT endpoint adds mild confusion.

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?

Extremely short, front-loaded, but the first two lines are near-duplicates ('Update an action secret' / 'Updates an existing action secret') and the third is a raw route. Little waste in length, but the repetition adds nothing.

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 mutation tool with a nested body object, no output schema, and no annotations explaining replace semantics, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether omitted body fields are cleared or preserved, which matters materially for a PUT.

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 100%, so the schema documents both the path id and the body object with its fields. The description contributes no additional meaning about which body fields matter or are required during an update, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an action secret") plus the underlying PUT route. It is distinguishable from siblings like abx_get_action_secrets_by_id and abx_delete_action_secret by the verb, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with abx_post_action_secrets or abx_put_actions_by_id.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of abx_post_action_secrets (create) or abx_patch_actions_by_id, and no prerequisites such as required ID or permissions. The agent must infer update-vs-create semantics from the tool name alone.

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