Choose AI provider

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a persisted app-level setting via the prerequisite check, but says nothing about whether switching providers invalidates a selected model or affects running jobs.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing redundant with the title is repeated.

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?

For a two-parameter settings mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, this is nearly sufficient. The minor gap is the absence of any statement about failure modes (unknown provider, unavailable local runtime) or what the call returns.

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%, so both parameters — including the enum of provider ids and the 'model id from get_ai_status' hint — are already documented. The description only restates '(and optionally model)' and adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Select the local AI provider (and optionally model) the app uses for generation.' That is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like get_ai_status, though the description never names test_ai_provider, the nearest confusable write/verify pair.

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?

'Check readiness with get_ai_status first' gives an explicit prerequisite and names the sibling to call beforehand. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when not to use this instead of test_ai_provider, or what happens if the app is mid-generation.

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