update_provider

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does well on two fronts: it discloses that empty endpoint/api_key_env leave values unchanged, and that options are MERGED rather than replaced. However, it omits error/not-found behavior, permission requirements, and gives only the vague 'Returns: JSON result'.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan with zero filler. Slightly redundant to restate 'Returns: JSON result' when an output schema exists, but overall efficient.

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 four-parameter partial-update tool, the description covers every parameter including the important partial-update merge/empty semantics. An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, though the missing when-to-use context leaves a small gap.

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 carry all parameter meaning and it does: name is the existing provider id, endpoint is the new base URL, api_key_env is the new env-var name, and options is a JSON object merged into existing options. Every one of the 4 params gets clear semantics plus the empty-value convention.

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 states a specific verb (update) and resource (an existing provider) plus the fields that can change, making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from create_provider/delete_provider, but the 'existing' qualifier makes the difference inferable.

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 is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_provider or delete_provider, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing provider id. The only implied usage comes from the word 'existing'.

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