Save a secret

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description's added value is the consumption path (ctx.secrets.get(NAME)) and the naming convention, both useful context. It stops short of saying what happens when a name already exists (overwrite vs. error) or whether a redeploy is needed for a running app to pick up the new value.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, how the app reads the value, the naming rule, and the security instruction. The core action is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, naming, consumption, and the sourcing rule. The remaining gap is lifecycle behavior: whether the secret is available to an already-running deployment or requires a redeploy, and what happens on a name collision.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a normative constraint the schema lacks: names must be UPPER_SNAKE_CASE, not merely exemplified as OPENAI_API_KEY. It says nothing extra about the directory parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (saves a secret) with concrete examples of what a secret is (API key, password) and the scope (for the deployed app). No sibling tool covers secrets, so there is nothing to disambiguate against, and an agent can act on this immediately.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: ask the person for the value and never hardcode it in code, which tells the agent how to source the input rather than guessing. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling covers this capability.

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