inference_update_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses PATCH semantics, signing with the unlocked payout wallet, the unlocked-wallet requirement, partial-update behavior, endpoint re-verification, and the acceptedToken/pricePerRequest coupling. These are the key side effects and prerequisites an agent needs before invoking a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then lists important constraints efficiently. The final tip about earning_opportunities is tangential and slightly reduces focus, but the overall structure remains useful and readable.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: wallet unlock, signing, partial updates, endpoint re-verification, and token-price coupling. It does not discuss gateway-related parameters or expected response behavior, but the schema fills in those parameter details.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are already well documented. The description restates some relationships such as acceptedToken requiring pricePerRequest and endpoint re-verification, but those are also present in the schema, so it adds only limited value beyond the structured parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Update your marketplace listing in place" and enumerates the mutable fields (name, models, payout address, endpoint, description, price, accepted token). It also distinguishes the operation from delete/re-add, which makes it easy to separate from registration and listing tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to update an existing listing in place, only passed fields change, and acceptedToken changes require pricePerRequest in the same call. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like inference_register_provider or inference_check_provider, but the conditions for correct use are well covered.

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