Create Secret

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the self-destructing nature, end-to-end encryption, server's inability to see plaintext, and how secrets can be read from various sources. While annotations cover basic safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description provides important operational details about security and data handling.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each add distinct value: purpose statement, security explanation, and usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 creation tool with good annotations and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides solid context about security, self-destruction, and input methods. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't explain what gets returned (e.g., a shareable link). However, given the tool's complexity and the schema's thoroughness, it's mostly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'label' and implies content handling from various sources, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('create a secure, self-destructing link') and resource ('secret'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on creation rather than checking, listing, or viewing secrets. It provides concrete examples of what can be shared (passwords, API keys, credentials).

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('for sharing sensitive data') and mentions alternative input methods ('reading secrets from environment variables, files, or .env files'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare it to sibling tools like list_secrets or view_secret.

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