Update Provider

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds that it updates 'form/metadata' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like partial update semantics, error conditions, or effects on unspecified fields. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, immediately conveying the action and target. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant words, making it highly efficient for an update operation.

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?

While the annotations provide safety context, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain whether the update is full or partial, what the return value is, or how errors are reported. With four required parameters including nested objects, the description is insufficient for complete operational context.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, each with a description. The description's mention of 'form/metadata' maps to the 'form' and 'meta_data' fields but adds little beyond the schema. The schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 target resource ('existing provider's form/metadata'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_create_provider, lyzr_delete_provider, and lyzr_get_provider. It is specific and 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as lyzr_create_provider or lyzr_get_provider, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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