delete_secretPermanently delete a secret by name to remove it from the vault. Ensures the secret cannot be retrieved later.
Permanently delete a secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Secret name to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects; 'permanently' explicitly signals irreversibility and destructive behavior, which is the most important trait for a delete operation. It does not cover permission requirements or cascade effects on shares, but the core behavioral risk is stated.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word ('permanently', 'delete', 'secret') 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it identifies the action, the target, and the irreversibility. It loses a point only for not naming alternatives or side effects, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 already describes the single `name` parameter completely, and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. At 100% schema coverage, the baseline 3 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?
Clearly states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('a secret'), and the word 'permanently' distinguishes this destructive operation from siblings like rotate_secret or get_secret. Even without opening the schema, an agent can tell what this tool does.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as revoke_share or rotate_secret, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The use case is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.