update-identity-provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the purpose and provides no information about partial vs. full update semantics, permission requirements, side effects, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and concise, though arguably too minimal for a complex tool, it is well-structured.

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?

The tool is complex (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), yet the description provides no information about update semantics, return values, or parameter relationships. It is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior of the operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the 11 parameters described. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'identity provider', clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/get/list siblings. It also specifies 'existing', implying modification of an already-created provider. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'Update' implies usage when modifying an existing provider, but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to create/delete. Context is purely implicit.

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