cigchat_flow_settings_set_default_ai_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), required scope ('Manage Flow'), and the list of accepted providers, which are useful behavioral hints. However, it does not describe whether existing defaults are overwritten, error behavior, or the response format, leaving notable gaps for 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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Set default ai provider and model') and then includes the endpoint, provider list, and scope requirement without redundancy. Every phrase contributes to identifying the operation and its constraints, making it appropriately compact.

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 simple setter with a fully self-describing schema and no nested objects, the description covers the core function, endpoint, required scope, and provider options. It is weak only in not indicating the return value or overwrite behavior, but given the tool's low complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters with full descriptions: ai_provider lists the valid values and ai_model gives an example. The description repeats the provider list but adds no additional semantic depth beyond the schema, such as clarifying that ai_model is optional or explaining how the two parameters interact. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly states 'Set default ai provider and model', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also enumerates the allowed values for ai_provider, differentiating it from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_settings_get_default_ai_provider. The endpoint and scope requirement further clarify the operation.

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 from the verb 'set' and the resource name but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cigchat_flow_update_ai_agent_provider or get_default_ai_provider. The scope requirement ('Manage Flow') provides a prerequisite, not a decision rule. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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