update_handover_provider

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

The description warns that this is a mutating operation, but this is already indicated by readOnlyHint=false in annotations. The dryRun guidance is also present in the schema description, so no new behavioral information is added beyond what structured fields provide.

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 very concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial usage guideline. No unnecessary information is included.

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?

The description omits details like return values (no output schema), error handling, required permissions, and the requirement that the provider must exist. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects), more context would be beneficial for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as constraints, dependencies, or formatting rules. It merely restates the purpose of the tool.

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 it updates an existing handover provider and lists the use cases (change settings, enable/disable). It distinguishes from create/delete handover provider siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list.

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 includes a note about using dryRun to test before updating, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get first to verify, or which parameters are required beyond providerId). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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