Update secret

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing about the critical unknown: whether metadata is fully replaced or merged, what happens to omitted fields, or what makes this call destructive. For a non-idempotent mutation, that gap matters.

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 words, fully front-loaded with zero waste, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a four-parameter destructive mutation.

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?

No output schema, a nested metadata object, destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and half the parameters undocumented — yet the description supplies none of the missing semantics (replace-vs-merge, auth requirements, field-level effects).

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 only 50%: name and metadata are documented, but orgID and secretID carry only regex patterns with no prose. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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 verb (update) and resource (secret) plus a scoping qualifier (metadata), so an agent can infer that secret values cannot be changed here — a useful distinction from secrets_create/secrets_delete. However, it is minimal and does not distinguish this tool's role among the many *_update siblings or clarify whether 'metadata' includes the name field.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as secrets_create for new secrets or secrets_delete for removal. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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