update-secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Only provided fields are changed,' which is useful for understanding partial updates. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), output format, and comprehensive usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying partial updates ('Only provided fields are changed') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing secret's value, description, tags, or domain.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('secret'), and lists the updatable fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-secret' or 'renew-secret', which would require a 5.

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 provides minimal usage guidance with 'Only provided fields are changed,' which implies partial updates are allowed. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, such as prerequisites (e.g., secret must exist), alternatives (e.g., vs. create-secret for new secrets), or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it).

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