contabo_secrets

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the server runs read-only by default and rejects writes until an env flag is set, and delete is explicitly marked [DESTRUCTIVE]. That gating behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 text is tight and front-loaded: mode constraint first, then a scannable bulleted operation list, then the pointer to contabo_reference. Every sentence carries information and the destructive marker is inline where the agent will see it.

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 five-operation tool with a complex oneOf schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke the right operation and to know writes are gated. It could have stated which operations are affected by the read-only mode and what the delete returns, but the coverage is adequate given 100% schema description density.

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 per-operation parameter definitions (name, value, type, secretId filters) are already fully documented in the schema, including the password regex. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own and instead defers to contabo_reference, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 names the resource precisely (Contabo secrets covering SSH keys and passwords) and enumerates the five supported operations, so an agent knows exactly what domain this tool covers. It does not differentiate against named siblings such as contabo_reference, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

It states the governing usage rule ('Choose exactly one operation'; parameters validated per operation) and adds a critical runtime constraint: writes are rejected unless the server started with CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1. It also routes the agent to contabo_reference for full parameter documentation. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, but no sibling tool competes for this resource.

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