configure_provider

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the primary side effect (sets an environment variable) and that it is session-only. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, validation, or any error/return expectations. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence followed by an Args block. Each element serves a purpose, with no redundant text. The structure is easy to scan and immediately actionable.

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?

As a simple configuration tool with no output schema, the description could have explained expected return values or error conditions. It does not mention what happens on success/failure, which limits completeness. However, the core behavior and parameters are covered.

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 0%, so the description adds necessary value. For 'provider' it specifies allowed values (gemini|openai), which is substantial. For 'api_key' it provides a short but adequate definition. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Configure an API key for a provider.' It also notes the session-scoped side effect (sets environment variable), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on diagram generation, template listing, and usage reports. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states it sets an environment variable for the current session, providing clear context on scope. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the tool's purpose is inherently clear among siblings. The session-scoped detail is a useful usage guideline.

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