Update a secret

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies state) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), which the description does not contradict. The description adds that it is a PATCH operation and the authorization class. However, it fails to disclose potential consequences, such as whether changing status to 'deleted' might be irreversible or trigger other effects.

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 very short, which can be concise, but it lacks necessary details. The structure places the title on one line followed by two lines of implementation details (HTTP method and auth). It is not front-loaded with the most important information for an agent; it prioritizes technical details over usage guidance.

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 has 2 required parameters, nested objects, enums, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input/output, constraints, or behavior. The agent cannot use this tool effectively without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe any parameter, not even the required 'id' or the body fields like 'key', 'name', 'status'. The schema provides constraints (e.g., pattern, maxLength) but no semantic meaning. This is a significant gap.

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 title and description clearly state 'Update a secret', which identifies the verb (update) and resource (secret). Among sibling tools, there are create, delete, and rotate secret tools, so this tool is distinct. However, the description does not specify that it performs a partial update via PATCH, which is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 creating, deleting, or rotating secrets. It only includes an authorization class note, which is a security detail, not usage guidance. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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