Set Secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers substantive context: values are envelope-encrypted server-side with AWS KMS and the call returns a new version number, which implies versioned storage. It does not explicitly state overwrite consequences for an existing name or auth requirements, but the disclosed traits go well beyond a bare mutation claim.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the encryption behavior, and the return value. The purpose is front-loaded with no filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, it discloses the two most decision-relevant traits — server-side KMS encryption and the version-number return — while the schema covers all parameters. The remaining gaps (explicit overwrite/versioning semantics and sibling routing) are either partially implied by 'update' and 'new version number' or already captured under usage guidance.

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?

Scema description coverage is 100%, with each of the five parameters already documented — including examples, ISO 8601 format, and the mutual exclusivity between expiresAt and ttlSeconds. Per baseline, the description need not repeat parameter detail, and it does not add param-specific value, which is acceptable here.

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-resource pair ('Store or update a secret') plus a concrete return value ('Returns the new version number'). Against siblings like get_secret, delete_secret, and rotate_secret, this is the only tool that writes an arbitrary secret value, so a model can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 verb 'Store or update' implies the use case — creating or replacing a secret value — but no alternatives are named and no exclusions are given. An agent must infer that rotate_secret handles rotation, get_secret handles reads, and delete_secret handles removal. This is implied guidance, not explicit routing.

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