Configure optional LLM (BYO key)

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

Annotations give idempotentHint true; description adds critical behavioral details: never stores API key, reads from env, stores only provider/model name, and returns status/ready/cost. This goes well beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, security, args, returns). It is slightly longer but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but overall effective.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything: operation, security, arg details, return values (provider/model, ready status, cost note). It feels complete for a configuration 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 100% with enum for provider. Description adds meaning: all args optional, 'omit all to see status', default baseUrl, and enumeration examples. This adds value beyond 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 states the tool configures an optional LLM with BYO key, and distinguishes it by being opt-in for smarter features. The verb 'configure' and resource 'LLM' are specific, and it stands out among sibling mindmap tools.

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 explains when to use (to unlock smarter features) and that omitting all args returns status. It mentions security but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the context is sufficient.

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