Set secrets

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

The annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important effect that existing values with the same key are overwritten. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful behavioral context.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary use case is front-loaded and the key overwrite behavior is stated in a compact second sentence.

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 straightforward set operation, the description covers when to use it, the target scope, and the overwrite behavior. It does not describe the return value or whether setting secrets triggers a redeploy, but these are not essential for invoking the tool correctly given the schema and annotations.

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?

The input schema covers values and service with descriptions, giving 67% coverage. The description broadly maps to the project and service parameters by mentioning 'Lizard service or project', but it does not add meaningful detail about the values object or the project parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('set') and resource ('environment variables/secrets') with a clear scope ('Lizard service or project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_list and secrets_delete.

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 set...', giving a direct usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action of setting secrets is unambiguous relative to the sibling tools.

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