doppler_secrets_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Delete' implies mutation/destruction, but the description doesn't state whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires special permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., non-existent secret), or the return format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Very concise, though the availability of such brevity comes at the cost of behavioral transparency depth.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, putting burden on the description. With a 3-parameter tool and mutation semantics, the description should communicate permanence, permission requirements, and error behavior. The current description only states what it does, not what the agent should expect or verify before invoking. Highly incomplete for a destructive operation.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. However, the schema notes project/config are optional 'if set via doppler setup' which provides useful context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers 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 'Delete a secret from Doppler' has a clear verb (delete) and resource (secret in Doppler), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from its sibling `doppler_secrets_set` or `doppler_secrets_get`, but the verb 'delete' is self-evident in purpose. A modest improvement would be noting the mutation aspect or scope, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like doppler_secrets_set or doppler_secrets_get. The description doesn't mention that deletion is destructive or irreversible, nor does it note the optional project/config context requiring doppler setup. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or caveats about failed deletions (e.g., deleting a non-existent secret).

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