Update a secret provider configuration

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

The description only adds 'Authorization class: board', which is an auth detail beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens during the update (e.g., partial updates, validation, or if missing fields are reset).

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 short but repeats the title verbatim. The second sentence adds operational trivia (Paperclip operation, auth class) that is not essential for agent usage. It is not wasteful but could be more focused on tool semantics.

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 is a mutation with nested parameters and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of information about the input fields, update semantics, or when this tool is appropriate. An agent would need to guess or rely on the schema alone.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the two required parameters (path with id, body with config, status, isDefault, displayName). It does not explain what each field does, constraints, or relationships. The description is entirely silent on parameters.

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 title and description clearly state 'Update a secret provider configuration', specifying the verb 'Update' and the resource 'secret provider configuration'. The description also includes the HTTP method and path, which clarifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get, delete, or other patch tools on different resources, but the resource type is uniquely identified.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pc_get_secret_provider_configs_by_id, pc_delete_secret_provider_configs_by_id, or pc_post_secret_provider_configs_by_id_default. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to other tools.

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