update_provider

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about security (api_key should prefer out-of-band) and confirms non-sensitive fields are unrestricted. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether updates are partial or full, what happens on invalid provider_id, or any immediate effect of changes.

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 tight two-sentence structure: first states the core purpose with example fields, second provides crucial security guidance. No wasted words, and the most important operational detail (api_key alternative) is front-loaded in the second 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 update tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers key operational context: purpose, sensitive-field handling, and restrictions. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no mention that all parameters except provider_id are optional nullable, though this is visible in the schema), but overall it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions base_url, name, enabled, and api_key, adding meaningful context (sensitive vs non-sensitive). However, provider_id (the required parameter) is not explained, and no per-parameter format or valid value constraints are given beyond what the schema shows.

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 clearly states the tool updates LLM provider configuration, listing specific non-sensitive fields (base_url, name, enabled). It uses a specific verb (更新) with a resource (LLM 供应商配置), and is easily distinguished from siblings like add_provider and list_providers.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to avoid using this tool for api_key, recommending an alternative out-of-band command (`bilinote-mcp providers set`). It also clarifies the condition under which using this tool for api_key is acceptable, giving clear usage boundaries.

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