Update Custom Provider

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying that built-in providers are ineligible and that the provider must be in a closed state. It also implies a partial update behavior. It does not detail error conditions or side effects, which would raise it to a 5.

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 very concise: two sentences plus an args section. It front-loads the core purpose and constraint, then efficiently lists parameters by reference. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, has output schema), the description covers the update semantics, prerequisite condition, and parameter mapping via cross-reference. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema provides that. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that most parameters have the same meaning as in gv_create_provider and that only changed ones should be passed. It explicitly lists the parameter names and clarifies the required 'name' parameter. However, it relies on cross-reference rather than defining each parameter individually, which is a minor limitation.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'custom provider's configuration'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that built-in providers cannot be updated, effectively differentiating from create and get 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?

The description provides explicit prerequisites ('provider must be closed') and the usage pattern ('pass only the fields you want to change'). It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for creation, use gv_create_provider), but the tool name and context imply the alternative.

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