Delete a secret

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is destructive and idempotent. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class (board_or_agent), which provides useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any additional traits beyond what annotations imply, such as the scope of deletion (e.g., whether it cascades).

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose ('Delete a secret'). The additional technical details (HTTP method, auth class) are relevant but not excessive. It could be improved by including parameter information without adding much length.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description omits critical context about the deletion's effects, such as whether it is irreversible, what happens to references, or if there are any constraints (e.g., cannot delete secrets in use). The description is insufficient for an agent to safely execute this operation without external knowledge.

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 description does not mention any parameters or explain their purpose. The input schema has 50% coverage (path.id is required but lacks a description; body is optional with no schema). Without parameter context in the description, the agent cannot infer how to construct the `id` value or differentiate required vs optional parameters.

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 starts with 'Delete a secret', which clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete operations for other entities (e.g., agents, issues) or from other secret operations like patch or rotate, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name alone for distinction.

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. It does not specify prerequisites, contexts where deletion is appropriate, or scenarios to avoid. The mention of authorization class is a requirement, not usage guidance.

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