Update Provider_network

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

Description adds PATCH semantics behavior (only provided fields change) beyond annotations that declare mutability and idempotency. Also explains return format options. Annotations already cover safety profile, so the extra detail on partial updates is valuable.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose/semantics, usage instruction, return description. No extraneous information, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

Covers essential aspects: update action, PATCH semantics, return formats. Could mention error handling or prerequisite checks (e.g., provider existence), but for a standard update tool it is sufficiently complete given the schema and annotations.

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?

With 44% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the key parameter 'id' and the overall update pattern. It also details the response_format parameter, including when to use each option. Other parameters lack additional explanation, but the core behavior is well-supported.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates an existing provider_network with PATCH semantics. The verb 'Update' and resource 'provider_network' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling create/delete tools by specifying 'Update' and 'existing'.

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?

Description specifies to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, implying the object must exist. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creation), but the context is clear. No guidance on prerequisites like provider existence, but the semantics are well conveyed.

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