Update provider settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: that primary is a deprecated alias and that false is a no-op, which prevents a wasted call. It does not say what precedence or ordering changes occur, whether omitted fields are preserved, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and then the one non-obvious parameter caveat. Nothing needs to be removed.

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?

It covers the trickiest part (the deprecated primary alias and its no-op false behavior) well, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But for a 6-parameter mutation with 50% schema coverage and no guidance on the overlapping single-field siblings, key facts remain missing: idempotency_key behavior and how priority interacts with enabled.

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 50%, with enabled, priority and idempotency_key undocumented in the schema. The description names enabled and priority but adds no semantics (e.g. whether lower priority means higher precedence), and its primary text is a near-verbatim duplicate of the schema's own description for that field. With the description mostly restating rather than compensating, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource (updates provider settings) and it names the concrete fields it affects (enabled state, priority). However it never distinguishes itself from the closely overlapping siblings set_provider_enabled, set_provider_priority and set_primary_provider, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to reach for.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the three sibling tools that appear to do the same single-field edits. The only guidance offered is the semantics of the deprecated alias, which explains a parameter rather than tool selection.

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