billing_provider_update

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write, and the description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether this is a full replace or partial update, whether the uuid target must already exist, what permissions are required, or what happens to omitted fields. For a mutation tool the description carries meaningful unanswered behavioral questions.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a three-word fragment with no front-loaded distinction between required and optional fields or return behavior. Brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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?

With four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no description-level behavioral detail, an agent cannot confidently construct a call. Everything an agent needs beyond the bare field names is absent.

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% across four parameters (name, uuid, loginUrl, faviconLink), and the description mentions none of them. No format, constraint, or validation context is supplied beyond what the raw schema types already show.

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?

"Update infra provider" restates the tool name with only the thinnest verb+resource framing and never says what a provider entity actually holds or which fields become mutable. Against siblings like billing_provider_create/delete/get, it gives no distinguishing detail beyond the operation word.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative siblings such as billing_provider_create or billing_provider_delete. The agent is left to infer applicability entirely from the name.

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