Delete a secret

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, destroys everything stored in the secret, and requires a confirmation step. This meaningfully helps the agent understand the consequences and the required safety precondition.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and consequence, and the second provides the safety precondition. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple destructive tool with fully documented parameters, destructive annotations, and clear usage and safety instructions, the description is complete. No output schema or nested structures require additional explanation, and an agent has enough context 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 input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, including the confirm parameter's exact-match requirement and its source. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the action ('Permanently deletes') and the resource ('a secret and everything stored in it'), making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling oneguard_secrets_archive, but the permanent and all-encompassing phrasing strongly distinguishes deletion from archival.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: only after the user has explicitly requested deletion of that specific secret, and after the secret name has been read back to the user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like archiving, but the safety framing is clear enough for an agent to know when deletion is appropriate.

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