create_provider

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: secrets are not persisted, and api_key_env holds a variable NAME resolved at request time. It also states uniqueness of the name. It omits permission/auth requirements, duplicate-name behavior, and error semantics, but the secret-handling disclosure is high value.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the important secret-handling caveat, then a clean Args block. Well organized, but the 'Returns: JSON result' line is content-free filler, especially given an output schema exists.

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 5-parameter, zero-schema-coverage, annotation-free creation tool, this is close to complete: the secret model, parameter formats, and enum values are all supplied, and the output schema covers return values. Only failure modes (duplicate name, invalid type) and auth requirements are unaddressed.

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 must compensate and it does: it documents all five parameters, gives the three valid 'type' values (stub, openai_compatible, ollama) that the schema leaves as an undescribed string, specifies name casing/allowed separators, and gives examples for api_key_env and options. This materially exceeds what the schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a provider configuration'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling CRUD operations update_provider, delete_provider, and list_providers by verb alone. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing advice relative to update_provider or the other provider tools. The secrets/environment-variable note is useful setup context but is not usage guidance for choosing this tool over another.

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