litellm_admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It labels the tool as 'high risk' and lists potentially destructive operations (global spend reset, bulk user update), which is upfront about behavioral traits. It does not detail all side effects, but the risk warning is sufficient.

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 concise: three sentences plus a code example, with no fluff. It front-loads the high-risk purpose and immediately directs the user to the help operation for details.

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 (multiple admin operations), the description provides enough context to start via the help operation and lists example operations. No output schema exists, but the help mechanism compensates. It is adequate for a high-risk admin tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the operation parameter as a command name and params as a JSON object. It provides an example and mentions the help operation, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as for 'Proxy-global LiteLLM administration' and lists specific operations (allowed IPs, global spend reset, bulk user update), distinguishing it from siblings like litellm_read, litellm_delete, litellm_execute, and litellm_version.

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 instructs to call with operation='help' to list available operations and provides an example, giving a clear entry point. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of high-risk admin operations compared to siblings implies appropriate usage.

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