Submit encrypted secure input

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing: it does not say what gets consumed or destroyed (presumably the pending secret request), whether the operation is one-shot, or what happens on success or failure. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added value.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, so there is no waste. However, for a five-parameter cryptographic submission tool this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 a destructive, open-world write with five strictly-patterned required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the request lifecycle and payload construction. One sentence leaves the agent unable to build a valid call or understand the consequences.

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 0% for five required parameters, and the description compensates with nothing. It never explains that key/iv are base64-encoded cryptographic material, that ciphertext carries the actual secret, or that requestId must reference an existing request — all of which are essential for correct invocation.

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?

"Submit an encrypted input envelope" gives a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a paraphrase of the title ("Submit encrypted secure input") and leaves "envelope" undefined. It gives no hint of how this differs from siblings like request_secret or secureinput_status, so an agent cannot route on this alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a requestId must first come from request_secret), and no mention of alternatives such as inline_request_status for checking progress. The agent must infer the entire workflow from the sibling names.

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