Set provider enabled

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, signaling a mutating non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context—such as whether disabling is reversible, what happens to associated data, or whether testing is needed. Given the annotation coverage is decent, a mid score is appropriate, but there's no value added beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action. However, given the tool's simplicity, this is appropriately concise without sacrificing needed context. Could add brief usage guidance but maintains efficiency.

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?

No output schema, no annotations explaining side effects or reversibility, one undocumented parameter (idempotency_key), and no guidance on preconditions. For a state-changing tool in a provider-management cluster with many siblings, the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The enabled, project_id, and provider_id params have helpful schema descriptions. The idempotency_key has no description in either schema or tool description, leaving one param undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is fair.

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 "Enable or disable a provider for a project" uses a clear verb+resource combination and states the two possible states. It's concise and clear, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like connect_provider or update_provider_settings, which limits differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connect_provider, update_provider_settings, or set_provider_priority. The description and schema don't explain when enabling/disabling is appropriate versus connecting a provider, or any prerequisites (e.g., provider must be connected first).

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