update_secret

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

Annotations already show this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive update. The description adds meaningful context: the new value is encrypted and replaces the previous value. This discloses the replacement/overwrite behavior, which is useful beyond what annotations 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, and the encryption/replacement behavior. Very efficient for an agent to parse.

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 low-complexity tool with robust annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the action, target, and an important behavioral consequence. It could mention the need for the secret to already exist or what happens on failure, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds a relevant encryption detail about the value, but it does not explain the optional description parameter or add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Atualiza' = updates), a specific resource ('secret existente'), and what changes (the value). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools create_secret and delete_secret by emphasizing 'existing' secret.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: the word 'existente' tells an agent this is for changing a secret that already exists. However, it never names alternatives like create_secret or states a when-not-to-use condition, so guidance is limited.

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