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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the change only affects future runs, signaling that existing enrichment outputs are not modified.

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 tight sentences with no unnecessary detail. The core action is first, followed immediately by the most important behavioral caveat, so 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 simple one-parameter setter, the description captures what is being setchers, why it matters, and the temporal scope of the change. The lack of an output schema is acceptable here since the operation is a straightforward configuration update and no additional workflow prerequisites are apparent.

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%, and the description's mention of 'used for enrichment' adds only mild context to the provider parameter. The schema already provides the enum values and the basic explanation, so the description does not substantially improve parameter understanding.

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 ('Set') and resource ('LLM provider'), and further clarifies that the provider is used for enrichment. This differentiates it from the enrichment, catalog, and connection sibling tools with no ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context by specifying that the effect applies only to future runs, which tells the agent that this is a forward-looking configuration and will not retroactively alter past enrichment. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings.

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