IvedaAI: Openid

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description adds response JSON shape with status, truncated/timedOut flags, and required body fields. This gives the agent awareness of cut-off responses and required inputs, which annotations do not convey.

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 organized into concise, bullet-like lines for each operation, with no redundant text. The response JSON note is brief and useful; every sentence contributes.

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 multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description covers all three operations, their parameters, required fields, and response characteristics. The pointer to ivedaai_get_schema fills any remaining gaps, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The description maps each operation to its path/body parameters, specifies required fields for OpenidProviderReq, and directs to ivedaai_get_schema for the full field list. This adds crucial meaning beyond the generic body/path schema definitions.

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 explicitly names 'Openid operations' and enumerates three distinct API operations (Create, Update, Test connect), clearly identifying the tool's role in managing OpenID providers. This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on other resources.

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 lists the specific operations and their purposes, providing clear context for when to invoke each (create, update, test). It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the operation names and resource focus provide adequate guidance.

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