Set provider priority

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is disclosed. The description adds the interpretation detail that 'lower numbers are preferred first,' which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose idempotency behavior, or describe what happens when priority ties or conflicts occur among providers.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. Every word adds value. The directionality clue is packed efficiently into a single sentence.

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 4-param mutation tool without output schema or enums, the description is nearly sufficient. Gaps remain: no statement about whether this overwrites existing priority or appends to a list, no idempotency semantics, and no note about valid priority ranges beyond what schema constraints already provide.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). Priority, project_id, and provider_id are all documented in-schema. The description adds the ordinal-interpretation hint for priority ('lower numbers preferred first') which enriches meaning. However, idempotency_key is undocumented and the description doesn't compensate.

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 a clear verb-resource-action: 'Set provider priority for a project' with the important scoping clue 'Lower numbers are preferred first.' The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_provider_enabled or set_primary_provider, which could be confused with priority setting.

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 gives no when-to-use hints, no context on alternatives, and no relationship to sibling tools like set_primary_provider or set_provider_enabled. An agent choosing between these provider-related setters would receive no guidance on which to invoke, aside from the inferred meaning of 'priority.'

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