update_provider

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

The description discloses that reset_usage clears counters immediately, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-destructive, non-idempotent). It also mentions the return value. This is good but could be more detailed about other side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a critical usage note and return value. Every word is necessary and no fluff.

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 12 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main categories and return value. It lacks details on authorization or behavior for omitted fields, but the output schema and schema descriptions compensate adequately.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description only generally mentions 'metadata, limits, or expiration' and specifically calls out reset_usage, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide.

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 updates a provider's metadata, limits, or expiration, with a specific verb and resource. While it differentiates from sibling update tools by targeting 'provider', it does not explicitly distinguish from other update tools, but the resource is clear.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the reset_usage parameter ('only when you intend to reset quota tracking'), but does not offer broader when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools, though the context is sufficient given the tool's specificity.

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