call_provider_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that arguments are forwarded untouched, only the named client's credentials are resolved, exactly one account is touched, and the call is recorded in the run log. The phrase 'anything that server accepts is reachable' hints at potentially arbitrary 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 longer than needed and contains distracting, unclear passages like 'Munim's part is the credential' and 'This works with munim config ai off.' The core purpose and guidance could be conveyed in two or three clear sentences without the repetitive jargon.

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 absence of an output schema and the arbitrary nature of provider tools, the description provides enough workflow context: it names prerequisites, explains the single-account scope, mentions run-log recording, and directs the agent to launch_status for follow-up. It does not describe return values or error handling, but launch_status fills that gap.

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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds extra context beyond the schema, such as sourcing tool/arguments from list_provider_tools, the forwarding behavior, and the reminder to read inputSchema first.

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 opening sentence clearly states the action: 'Call one of a provider's own tools with one client's credentials.' It also distinguishes itself as 'the write half of the passthrough' versus the read-oriented list_provider_tools sibling.

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?

Provides concrete guidance: obtain tool and arguments from list_provider_tools, read the tool's inputSchema before guessing, and check launch_status afterward. It does not explicitly contrast with call_provider_api, but the 'provider's own tools' phrasing implies the distinction.

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