Push a local .env back to OneGuard

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

Even with destructiveHint=true already present, the description adds crucial behavioral context by explicitly warning that the upload REPLACES the secret's contents and by instructing confirmation before executing. This goes well beyond annotations and directly addresses the destructive nature.

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, each earning its place: the core action and replacement behavior, the confirmation requirement, and the alternative tool. The destructive consequence is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what the destructive effect is, what safety step to take, what to tell the user, and when to choose a different tool. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented with clear type and path expectations. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb-resource pair: uploads variables from a directory's .env into the linked secret, and explicitly states it replaces what the secret held. It also distinguishes itself by calling out oneguard_env_sync as the reverse, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit operational guidance: confirm with the user first and tell them which variable names are about to be uploaded. It also names an alternative tool for a distinct use case ('To add a single generated value without touching the rest, use oneguard_secrets_generate instead.') and identifies this as the reverse of oneguard_env_sync.

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