Toggle Provider Key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core action ('enable or disable') but does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether disabling a key invalidates existing usage, or any authorization requirements. This is thin for a state-changing operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable. It lacks usage context, parameter clarification, and behavioral details, leaving an agent to infer too much.

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 description does not compensate by explaining what key_id refers to, how provider values map, or what the enabled boolean controls beyond the obvious. The parameter names and enum provide some self-evident meaning, but the description adds no real semantic value over 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 clearly states a specific action ('Enable or disable') on a specific resource ('API key for a cloud provider'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that add, remove, or list keys, or enable providers. However, it does not explicitly note that the key must already exist or contrast itself with the similarly named nanites_setProviderEnabled.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like nanites_addProviderKey, nanites_removeProviderKey, or nanites_setProviderEnabled. The description gives no context about prerequisites or expected use cases.

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