vtex_update_payment_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid configurations, or rate limits. For a configuration update tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear naming and good schema documentation, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing contextual information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what validation occurs, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The combination of mutation operation + zero annotation coverage + no output schema requires more comprehensive description than provided.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (providerId and provider object). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes valid configuration in the provider object or provide examples. This meets 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 'Update payment provider configuration' clearly states the action (update) and target (payment provider configuration), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'vtex_update_brand' or 'vtex_update_category' beyond the resource type, and it lacks detail about what aspects of configuration can be updated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing provider), comparison to 'vtex_create_payment_provider' for initial setup, or when to use 'vtex_get_payment_provider' instead. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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