create-secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions name/tag coexistence but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, encryption methods, or what happens on success/failure. For a secret-creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 secret-creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'secret' is in this context, how values are stored/encrypted, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The single behavioral note about name/tags doesn't compensate for the missing context.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it only hints at the 'tags' parameter's purpose with 'env tags' but doesn't explain other parameters or provide additional context like format examples beyond what's in schema descriptions.

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 ('Create a new secret') and specifies the resource ('secret'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning uniqueness rules (same name with different env tags), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'update-secret' or 'renew-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?

The description implies usage when creating secrets, particularly with the note about name/env tag coexistence, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update-secret' or 'import-env'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or clear context for tool selection are mentioned.

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