update_provider

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so the description's marginal job is to flag risky side effects. It does that well for reset_usage by saying counters are cleared immediately, but says nothing about the other mutating fields' reversibility or about auth requirements such as org-admin keys needing workspace_id (only implied by the 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability statement and following with the highest-risk parameter caveat. The closing sentence about return values is largely redundant given the output schema exists, which costs it a point.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to surface what structured fields cannot: the immediate, quota-clearing effect of reset_usage, which it does. Additional notes on the workspace_id requirement for org-admin keys or on partial-update semantics would make it fully complete.

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 all 12 parameters including enums are already documented; baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for reset_usage, leaving the other eleven parameters entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a provider's') plus the scope of what is mutable (metadata, limits, expiration), which clearly separates it from get_provider, create_provider, and delete_provider. It stops short of naming which sibling handles pure rate-limit or usage-limit edits, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 one clear guideline is the caveat on reset_usage ('use it only when you intend to reset quota tracking'), which is genuinely helpful. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over overlapping siblings such as update_rate_limit, update_usage_limit, or reset_usage_limit_entity, which an agent selecting among 150+ tools would need.

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