trove_add_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses encryption in memory with age, that plaintext never touches disk, and the existence of a cleartext metadata sidecar. It does not contradict any annotations. The behavior is fairly transparent, though it omits details on return values or error handling.

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?

The description is two sentences, each packed with meaningful information. No fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action, encryption method, and prerequisite. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the encryption process, path structure, and prerequisite. However, it lacks any mention of return values or what the agent receives after execution, which is a notable gap since there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds global context (e.g., fields are encrypted inside payload, tags are non-sensitive) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not introduce new parameter-specific semantics.

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 clearly states the tool saves an encrypted secret under a specific path pattern (secrets/<category>/<slug>.age) and explains the metadata sidecar. The verb 'Save' and resource 'encrypted secret' are explicit, and the description distinguishes from siblings like trove_get_secret and trove_update_secret by focusing on creation and encryption details.

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires recipients in trove.toml) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like trove_add_snippet or trove_update_secret. The usage context is implied through the description of encryption and storage, but no direct when/when-not guidance is provided.

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