revoke_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable trait, that the real secret is destroyed locally, hinting at irreversibility. However, it omits permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, and what happens if the name doesn't exist.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the destruction side-effect immediately after. Appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description should cover authorization and irreversibility more fully; the local-destruction note is a good start but leaves the agent under-informed.

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% and the sole parameter `name` is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never explains what value `name` should hold or how it relates to handles produced by stage_secret.

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 (Delete/revoke) and resource (a stored handle), which is clear enough to distinguish from list_secrets and stage_secret. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or clarify the revoke-vs-delete relationship, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as stage_secret or request_with_secret. The agent must infer that this is the cleanup step after a handle is no longer needed.

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