create_secret

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

Discloses important behavior beyond annotations: encryption via AES-256-GCM, storage in the vault, and especially that the plaintext value will not be returned after creation and must be saved beforehand. This is critical operational context that readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and related annotations do not provide.

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?

Three short, focused blocks: the action, a critical warning, and downstream usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts are 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?

For a creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies sufficient context: what is created, how it is protected, what the agent must retain, and how to use the result. The warning about plaintext not being returned is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions and examples. The description adds genuine value by explaining that the 'name' parameter becomes secret_ref in api_config auth or vault_secret_id in connection_config, which is not stated in the schema. It does not add detail for category or usage_hint, but their schema descriptions are already sufficient.

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 'Cria um novo secret criptografado para o tenant' — a specific verb (create), resource (secret), and scope (tenant). The 'novo' distinguishes it from update/delete/list secret siblings, making the creation operation unambiguous.

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?

'Cria um novo secret' frames when to use the tool: when a new secret is needed. The downstream note 'use o name como secret_ref em api_config auth...' reinforces the practical use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives like update_secret or delete_secret, but the create/update/delete sibling cluster makes the distinction clear.

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