generate_secret

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

The description states that with store_in the generated secret is written into a credential, replacing the old value ('old value kept in history'). That is a state mutation, which directly conflicts with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The added detail about history retention and 'NOT returned' is useful, but it is delivered in contradiction to the structured safety hints.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the important side-effect warning front-loaded after the core purpose. Slightly telegraphic ('it is written straight into that credential') but efficient.

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 7-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description should cover the generation knobs (length/words/symbols) and what happens when store_in is null. It omits nearly all of them and only partially describes the return behavior.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only explains store_in (and implicitly kind). words, length, symbols, reason and store_field are left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a strong password or diceware-style passphrase') and covers both modes via the kind enum. It is clearly distinguishable from the credential-CRUD siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use for the store_in path ('use this for rotation so the new secret never enters the chat'), which is genuinely actionable guidance. It does not say when *not* to use store_in, nor position itself against add_credential/update_credential, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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