Delete secrets

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: the operation 'cannot be undone' and 'requires explicit confirmation.' This goes beyond the raw annotation and helps the agent understand the irreversibility and the need for user confirmation before invoking the 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and the destructive warning is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 simple deletion tool, the description covers purpose, destructiveness, and confirmation requirements. However, it does not clarify the project/service relationship or whether service-level deletion differs from project-level deletion, and there is no mention of return/error behavior. The destructive annotation helps, but the description leaves a few practical details unresolved.

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%, so the description carries more responsibility. It indirectly maps to parameters: 'one or more' implies the keys array, 'confirmation' maps to confirm, and 'service or project' points to project/service. However, it does not clearly explain the relationship between project and service (e.g., service is optional) or define the keys format, leaving some semantic gaps.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('remove') with a clear resource ('environment variables/secrets') and scope ('Lizard service or project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_list and secrets_set, and there is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 opens with 'Use this when the user wants to remove...', giving a clear trigger condition. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as pointing to secrets_set for adding/updating secrets or secrets_list for viewing them, leaving sibling differentiation mostly implicit.

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