generate_client_secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It only states 'generate', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether previous secrets are invalidated, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could include more context without losing efficiency, so it's not a 5.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It lacks context on when to generate a new secret, prerequisites, or the behavior of previous secrets. The presence of many sibling tools increases the need for clarity.

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 both parameters (realm, client_uuid) are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and noun 'secret for a client', clearly stating the action and target resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_client_secret (retrieve) and invalidate_rotated_client_secret (invalidate) by indicating creation of a new secret.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios such as secret rotation, compromise, or initial setup, nor any exclusions or comparisons to related tools like get_client_secret or invalidate_rotated_client_secret.

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