provider_update_token

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

The description adds zero behavioral context beyond the name and path. While the annotations provide helpful hints (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description itself fails to disclose any unique behavioral constraints, risks, or operational details.

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 definition is extremely concise, using only three sentences (two redundant ones plus the path) to convey its identity. While slightly repetitive, its brevity is appropriate for a standard API operation.

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?

Given the complexity of the token body (containing fields like rotation, types, and expiration dates), the description is slightly lacking. It functions adequately only because the input schema is 100% complete, but the text itself does not provide a holistic view of the operation.

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 input schema coverage is 100%, meaning the schema fully defines all parameters. Since the structured data does the heavy lifting, the description serves as a baseline minimum viable explanation and does not provide specific semantic meaning beyond the verb 'Update'.

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 identifies the action (Update) and the resource (Token), which is adequate. However, it relies heavily on the API path (PUT /cloudapi/1.0.0/tokens/{id}) rather than providing a specific, descriptive business use case, making it minimally distinguishing from other provider operations.

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?

There are no usage guidelines provided. It does not specify when this tool should be used, nor does it suggest alternatives for specific tasks (e.g., 'Use this to extend expiration time' vs. 'Use provider_delete_token to invalidate').

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