sops_rename_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that values, source type, and metadata are preserved; that 'from' references in derived secrets are updated; and that the SOPS_AGE_KEY env var is required. It does not mention error handling or idempotency but covers key behavioral traits.

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 concise with three sentences that front-load the main action and cover essential details (preservation, reference updates, env var requirement). No redundant or vague language.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the rename operation. It explains side effects (updating derived secrets) and a prerequisite (env var). It could mention what happens on failure or if the key does not exist, but overall it is adequate for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'key' and 'rename' but the parameters (encrypted_content, old_name, new_name) are already described in the schema. No additional constraints or examples are provided.

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 states the action ('rename a key'), the resource ('existing SOPS-encrypted file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (add, delete, list, etc.) by focusing on renaming. It also details what is preserved and updated.

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 implies when to use (to rename a key) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or comparison with siblings like sops_add_secrets or sops_delete_secrets.

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