provider_update_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the URL is forwarded to mihomo via PUT, used immediately, and explicitly states it is not cached, logged, or written to disk. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a purpose statement, a brief Args list, and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first line.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, parameters, and non-persistence behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it, though it does not mention error cases or the return value; those are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the description documents both parameters: provider is the provider name, and url is the new subscription URL with the key caveat that it is forwarded and never persisted. This adds practical meaning beyond the plain string type definitions, though 'provider name' is slightly tautological.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Update a provider's subscription URL and trigger a refresh.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like provider_list or provider_healthcheck, which handle listing and health checks, not URL updates.

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 description implies its use case clearly: when a provider's subscription URL needs to be changed and a refresh triggered. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous for this simple update operation.

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