bolna_add_provider

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'securely add' but does not detail behavioral traits such as whether existing keys are overwritten, if validation occurs, or what the response indicates. The description lacks depth for a sensitive credential operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (action, resource, examples) without unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose, it lacks details on response format, error handling, or side effects. For a simple write operation with no output schema, it is adequate but could be more informative.

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 description adds marginal value by listing example provider types, but the schema already provides examples. The description does not compensate beyond that, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('add'), the resource ('provider API key'), and provides examples of provider types (LLM, TTS, STT, telephony), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like 'bolna_add_custom_llm' which adds custom LLMs.

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 implies usage for adding standard provider API keys but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bolna_add_custom_llm' or 'bolna_list_providers'. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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