Delete secret

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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: all versions and project grants are destroyed, the ciphertext is unrecoverable, and deletion has dependency-based blockers. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The destructive consequence is front-loaded, followed immediately by the blocking conditions, so the most important information is not buried.

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 destructive delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the key side effects and preconditions well. It does not document the required identifiers, but their names and schema patterns provide basic guidance, leaving only a minor 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 description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, and the description does not mention orgID or secretID at all. While their names are reasonably self-explanatory and the patterns indicate expected formats, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation as required when coverage is this low.

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 uses a precise verb and resource ('Deletes the secret') and immediately specifies the destructive scope ('permanently destroys all of its versions and project grants'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_update or grant_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?

It states a clear precondition for successful use: deletion is blocked while the secret is the credential of a model provider config, machine pool, or integration. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use in those blocked cases, so it falls short of the highest usage-guidance tier.

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