secrets-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a section, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated secrets), or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's destructive nature (deleting a section), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical aspects like what happens on success or failure, error conditions, or the impact on related data (e.g., secrets within the section). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'title' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a section from the secrets vault by title'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upsert_section' which might also modify sections, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upsert_section' for updates or 'get_section' for retrieval. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the section must exist or be empty, and doesn't mention any exclusions or recommended alternatives.

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