bookshelf_update_config_metadataprovider

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

The annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's explicit 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance' reinforces the write nature but adds only marginal context beyond annotations. No other behavioral traits (reversibility, permission requirements, dependent effects) are disclosed.

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 short but under-specified. The second sentence restates the write nature already implied by 'Update' and the annotations, so it wastes one sentence without contributing substantive information. It is more an under-specified snippet than a concise, helpful description.

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 mutation tool with a required 'id' and an unconstrained 'body' object, the description provides no context about what a 'config metadataprovider' is, what fields are expected in 'body', or what the response will include. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input semantics. This is inadequate for successful invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter or the structure of the 'body' object. The agent is left to infer what to pass from the tool name, which is not adequate for a mutation tool with an open-ended body.

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 names the verb 'Update' and resource 'config metadataprovider', which is clear enough to distinguish it from read-only tools. However, it lacks scope: it doesn't clarify whether this updates a specific provider by ID or the whole config, nor does it differentiate from the related get_config_metadataprovider tools. It stops short of being a tautology but adds little nuance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no hint of what scenario calls for it. The 'WRITE' warning only notes the side effect, not when or why to invoke the tool.

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