secrets_delete_acl

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the removal action. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence of 6 words is very concise and front-loaded. However, for a destructive operation, a slightly more descriptive sentence (e.g., mentioning required scope existence) could be valuable without harming conciseness.

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?

Tool has 2 simple parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the basic action but lacks details on error conditions or side effects (e.g., what if ACL does not exist). Adequate but not complete for complex use.

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% and both parameters ('scope', 'principal') have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is sufficient.

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 'Remove an ACL from a secret scope.' uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('ACL') with clear context ('secret scope'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like secrets_put_acl, secrets_get_acl, and secrets_delete_scope.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., secrets_put_acl, secrets_delete_scope) or prerequisites (e.g., scope must exist, principal must have ACL). The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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