Replace a secret's contents

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the concrete consequence that the whole payload is overwritten. It goes beyond the annotation by explaining the merge alternative and requiring user confirmation, giving the agent actionable context about the destructive behavior.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The critical destructive warning is front-loaded, and the alternative paths are compressed into a clear conditional. 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 destructive mutation with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key risks, names the alternatives, and states the user-confirmation requirement. Parameter details are handled by the schema, leaving the description to supply the missing decision context.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining that key and value together form a replacement pair, and by positioning from_env_file as the preferred way to send the full set of variables, which helps the agent choose the right parameter combination.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Replaces a secret's stored payload' — and immediately clarifies the destructive scope by warning that a single key/value pair replaces every key. It also distinguishes this from merge-style siblings by naming oneguard_secrets_generate as the alternative.

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 routing: for changing one variable while keeping others, use oneguard_secrets_generate (which merges) or sync to a .env file and push back with from_env_file. It also sets a clear precondition: 'Confirm with the user before calling this.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and when to choose an alternative.

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