Plan a signed personal provider change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: network access happens only when an action must verify a snapshot, and planning never mutates configuration or snapshots. That is a useful behavioral boundary the schema does not encode.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the operation set first, then the two behavioral guarantees. No filler, and the critical constraints (no network unless verifying, no writes) arrive early.

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 9-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description covers safety and network behavior but says nothing about what a plan is or how it is consumed (presumably handed to the apply tool). Nothing is wrong, but the plan/apply handoff is left implicit, which is a gap for a planning primitive.

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 78%, so most parameters (providerId, manifestUrl, publicKeyBase64, allowSequenceReset, expectedProviderId, includeInDefaultSearch) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing the action names, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Plan) plus the resource (signed personal provider change) and enumerates the five sub-actions (Add, Update, Configure, Remove, Trust Reset) matching the action enum. It distinguishes itself from the apply sibling implicitly via 'Planning never writes', but never names the apply counterpart, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 plan-then-apply workflow is implied by the 'Plan' verb and the no-write guarantee, and the note about network access gives a usage condition. However, it never states when to reach for this versus figure_library_apply_provider_source_change, nor inventories prerequisites (e.g., which actions need a verified snapshot). Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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