delete_secret_storage

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds no safety context of its own. It does not say what is permanently destroyed (stored credentials/encryption material), whether deletion fails if the storage is in use, or whether it can be undone.

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 short fragments with no padding and the action front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, and the path template substitutes for explanatory prose.

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 destructive, irreversible-sounding operation with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description omits consequences, dependency checks, and permission requirements. An agent has enough to form the call but not enough to make a safe decision about it.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it only places {project_id} and {storage_id} in a URL template. It does not explain what a secret storage ID is, how to obtain it (e.g., via list_secret_storages), or whether project_id must match the storage's owner.

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?

"Remove" is a vague verb on its own, but the REST route DELETE /project/{project_id}/secret_storages/{storage_id} disambiguates the resource as a secret storage scoped to a project. It identifies the action and target, but never names any of the many sibling delete_* tools, so nothing distinguishes it beyond the endpoint path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. Nothing warns that a storage still referenced by integrations may need unlinking first (the sibling get_secret_storage_references hints at such dependencies), and no prerequisites or safe-usage context are given.

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