secrets_put

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

The description mentions the return value ('Returns {} on success'), which adds minimal value beyond the annotation's readOnlyHint=false indicating mutation. It does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or the mutual exclusivity of string_value and bytes_value (though the schema covers that). Annotations already provide the mutation hint, so the description adds little.

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?

The description is very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action and return value. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding significant length, e.g., mentioning the mutual exclusion or typical use case.

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 4 parameters, an output schema (implied by context), and is part of a large secrets family, the description is minimally adequate. It states the return value but lacks context on when to use versus siblings, prerequisites (e.g., existing scope), or typical value constraints.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond restating the action. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Put a secret into the given scope') and the resource ('secret into scope'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like secrets_put_acl and secrets_delete_secret by focusing on the secret value itself. However, it could be more explicit about whether this creates or updates a secret.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many secrets-related sibling tools (e.g., secrets_get_secret, secrets_delete_secret, secrets_put_acl), the description should note when to use this for storing a value versus managing ACLs or scopes.

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