provider_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the impact on existing provider configuration. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and immediately states the core function.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it omits important context such as the effect of setting isActive, acceptable 'type' values, or whether the operation is admin-only. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100% with both parameters already described ('Provider type' and 'Whether provider is active'). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Enable or disable an authentication provider' uses a specific verb pair and identifies the resource ('authentication provider'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like provider_delete and provider_info. Even though the tool name suggests only 'enable', the description accurately captures both enable and disable behaviors via the isActive flag.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as provider_delete or provider_info. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or provide any decision framework, leaving the agent without context on selecting this tool.

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