Manage the encrypted credential vault (status / reset / rekey)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that reset permanently DELETES the vault, requires the human to type RESET into a secure prompt, and that status never reveals secrets. The re-encryption behavior of change_passphrase is also 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?

Three sentences cover all three actions, destructive warnings, and the post-reset step without padding. The opening 'Keep the credential vault recoverable' is slightly general, but the rest is dense and front-loaded with the most important behavioral caveats.

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 single-enum, no-output-schema, no-annotations tool, the description covers each action's effect, the key destructive consequence, the human confirmation requirement, and the recommended next step. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and safely.

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 schema already covers the action enum at 100% with per-value descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: permanent deletion, the escape-hatch purpose, and the re-enroll follow-up, which help an agent reason about consequences.

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 names three precise verbs (status, reset, change_passphrase) each tied to a concrete outcome: reporting vault state without secrets, permanently deleting the vault, and re-encrypting all profiles. This clearly separates vault maintenance from the sibling enrollment/auth tools.

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 reset action is explicitly scoped as the escape hatch for a forgotten passphrase, with re-enrollment called out as the follow-up. It does not explicitly state when to prefer enroll_credentials over this tool, but the context of vault maintenance vs. enrollment is clear enough.

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