Set secrets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds concrete value by specifying what is destroyed: existing values with the same key are overwritten. It stops short of saying whether keys not listed are preserved or purged, and says nothing about auth requirements.

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, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the overwrite caveat second. Minor filler in 'Use this when the user wants to', but no redundancy overall.

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 mutation tool with a nested key-value object and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves a material question open: whether the call merges with or replaces the full secret set. Project identifier format and return behavior are also unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67%; 'values' and 'service' are documented ('Omit to set project-wide (global) secrets'), while 'project' has no schema description at all. The description corroborates the service/global distinction but adds no format guidance for 'project' (ID vs. name) and does not say what happens with empty-string values. Baseline 3 for partial coverage is appropriate.

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 ('set') and resource ('environment variables/secrets') and scopes it to a Lizard service or project. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like secrets_list, secrets_delete, or secrets_refs, but the verb itself is distinctive enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to set one or more environment variables/secrets' gives a clear trigger condition. It does not state exclusions (e.g. use secrets_refs to read, secrets_delete to remove) or prerequisites such as required permissions.

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