update_ai_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the action and plan restrictions, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, or any required authentication beyond the plan. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 mutation tool with an empty schema and no output schema. The description is extremely minimal, lacking any information about payload structure, return values, prerequisites beyond plan level, or operational effects. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has no properties and allows additionalProperties, so the agent receives no structural guidance. The description adds zero parameter information—no hints about what fields (e.g., provider name, API key, model) should be provided. This fails to compensate for the schema's openness.

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 'Update AI provider settings' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (AI provider settings), and it is distinct from sibling tools like update_ui_settings and update_branding. The plan restriction adds context but doesn't fully specify what 'AI provider settings' encompasses.

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 provides eligibility context ('PRO plan or higher; BYO key/model is Business-only'), which helps the agent assess when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this tool over others, leaving some implicit inference.

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