Update File-Upload Provider Credential

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

The description says 'optionally replacing its files', which implies a potentially destructive action (overwriting/removing old files), while annotations set destructiveHint to false. This is a contradiction, as the description suggests destructive behavior that the annotation explicitly denies. The description also does not disclose other behavioral nuances such as whether existing files are merged or completely replaced.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and key optional behavior. No unnecessary words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain return values or additional side effects, but it does not. It also fails to specify what fields are valid in update_data or how file replacement interacts with existing files. The tool is minimally described, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 all parameters (credential_id, update_data, files) are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the optional file replacement, adding no new semantic details. It does not clarify the structure of update_data beyond 'JSON-encoded string'.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('file-upload provider credential'), and adds the optional file replacement behavior. It distinguishes itself from the more generic sibling tool 'lyzr_update_provider_credential' by specifying 'file-upload'. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'update_data' encompasses.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lyzr_update_provider_credential'. The specialization to 'file-upload' is implied by the name, but the description does not state any exclusions or direct comparison with sibling tools.

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