Update provider settings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description lists the mutable settings (enabled, priority, primary) which adds some value. However, it doesn't disclose whether updates are transactional, whether setting one field affects another (e.g., does setting primary affect enabled?), or whether partial updates are supported. The description is reasonably neutral and doesn't contradict 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, none wasted. Says exactly what to expect with the 'such as' enumeration. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

This is a moderate-complexity update tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the three main settings but doesn't address idempotency_key semantics, update behavior (partial vs full replace), or field interaction rules. Given the many sibling tools that overlap in purpose and the lack of annotations clarifying mutation semantics, this could be more 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 coverage is low at 33%, covering only project_id and provider_id. The description mentions 'enabled state, priority, or primary status' which maps to the enabled, priority, and primary parameters, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't explain the idempotency_key parameter at all, and doesn't clarify semantics like whether priority is 0=highest, whether primary=true implies enabled, or interaction between the three optional fields. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves gaps.

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 'Update provider settings such as enabled state, priority, or primary status' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (provider settings). However, it doesn't distinguish from the many sibling tools like set_provider_enabled, set_provider_priority, set_primary_provider, which appear to do overlapping single-purpose updates. The description gives no sense of scope difference from those siblings.

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 generic update tool versus the more specific siblings (set_provider_enabled, set_provider_priority, set_primary_provider). Given the large sibling list with similarly-named provider tools, this is a significant gap. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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