Generate a value into a secret

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

Goes well beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the critical no-return guarantee ('WITHOUT returning the value'), the merge semantics (every other variable preserved), and the failure condition ('Fails if the key already exists unless force is true'). No contradiction: destructiveHint=false aligns with merge-not-replace 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the no-return guarantee is front-loaded in the first sentence, merge semantics and sibling comparison in the second, usage guidance in the third. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Strong coverage of behavior, safety, and usage context for a write tool with 11 parameters and no output schema. The only gaps are the absence of any statement about what the tool returns on success/failure and no mention of auth requirements or rate limits. Minor given the depth of behavioral disclosure elsewhere.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual framing for 'key' (existence failure) and 'force' (override), but the schema already documents defaults, ranges, and charset options for the remaining parameters. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific action with verb and resource: 'Generates a random value and stores it in a secret under the given key.' The explicit contrast with oneguard_secrets_edit and the use-case framing ('new password, token or key created for a service') clearly distinguish it from sibling tools in the same domain.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever the user wants a new password, token or key created for a service.' It names the key sibling alternative (oneguard_secrets_edit) and explains the merge-vs-replace difference. However, it does not contrast with the equally similar siblings oneguard_generate or oneguard_secrets_add, leaving exclusion guidance incomplete.

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