delete-secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the basic 'delete' operation. The 'soft delete, can be recovered' disclosure is crucial information about the tool's behavior that isn't evident from the name or schema alone. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens to associated resources.

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 concise single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a secret') followed immediately by crucial behavioral context ('soft delete, can be recovered'). Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential context about the soft-delete behavior. However, it doesn't mention what the tool returns (success confirmation, error conditions) or provide guidance on recovery procedures, which would be helpful given the tool's destructive nature.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('delete') and resource ('a secret'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get-secret' or 'update-secret' by specifying the deletion operation. It also adds important nuance with 'soft delete, can be recovered' which differentiates it from a permanent deletion tool.

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 context through 'soft delete, can be recovered' suggesting this should be used when reversible deletion is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like permanent deletion tools or when not to use it. No specific prerequisites or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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