infra_billing_update_infra_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions PATCH (implying mutation) but does not disclose whether partial updates are supported, what happens to omitted fields, permission requirements, or any side effects. The confirm parameter's behavior is described in the schema, not the description, so the description adds almost nothing beyond the HTTP method.

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?

The description is two short lines (HTTP method/path plus a one-line summary) and is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the 'Tags' line is extraneous boilerplate that does not earn 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested body object with undocumented fields, the description is inadequate. It omits when to use it, what it modifies, the confirm-preview behavior that affects invocation, and any return semantics. The schema carries most of the burden, but the description does not compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 50%. The body object's properties (name, uuid, loginUrl, faviconLink) have no descriptions, but the confirm parameter has a detailed schema description explaining the preview behavior. The description itself adds no parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 'Update infra provider' with the HTTP verb PATCH and endpoint path, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like infra_billing_update_infra_billing_node or infra_billing_create_infra_provider, and the 'Tags: Infra Billing Controller' is boilerplate. The purpose is identifiable but sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as infra_billing_create_infra_provider or the update-node variant. The description is purely a REST endpoint restatement with no usage context or prerequisites.

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