Delete secrets

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'this is destructive and cannot be undone' largely restates that signal. It does add the useful operational fact that explicit confirmation is required and there is no interactive prompt path. It says nothing about partial-failure behavior when deleting multiple keys or what the response contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by the risk statement. No filler or repetition.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and a 25% parameter coverage gap, the description covers the trigger and the danger but leaves the project/service/keys relationship unexplained. An agent can call it, but must infer which scoping parameter is required in which 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 only 25%: only `confirm` is documented in the schema. The description never explains that `keys` is an array of secret names, whether `service` is optional versus `project`, or how the two scoping params interact. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate and largely does not.

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 gives a specific verb (remove) and a specific resource (environment variables/secrets) scoped to a service or project, which distinguishes it from secrets_list and secrets_set without needing to read the schema. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It states a clear trigger: 'when the user wants to remove one or more environment variables/secrets' from a service or project. It also flags that explicit confirmation is required. It stops short of naming adjacent tools (secrets_set, secrets_refs) as alternatives, so it falls below the top band.

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