delete_secret

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the downstream consequence: api_configs referencing this secret will stop working. "Permanentemente" reinforces non-recoverability. It still omits that a non-existent name will error (idempotentHint=false) and whether auth/confirmation is required.

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, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded right after the action statement so the warning cannot be missed.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing annotations cannot: the blast radius on referencing api_configs. Only the idempotency/error behavior of re-deleting is left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Nome do secret a remover"), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 verb+resource is explicit and specific ("Remove um secret permanentemente"), and "permanentemente" distinguishes it from the sibling update_secret. However, it never names update_secret or list_secrets as alternatives, so an agent must infer the routing from the verb alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: deleting versus updating a secret is inferable from the verb, but there is no statement of when deletion is appropriate, no prerequisites, and no pointer to update_secret for reversible changes. Minimum viable guidance.

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