Plan a signed personal provider change

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the important behavioral detail that network access occurs only when the requested action must verify a snapshot, and that planning never writes configuration or snapshots. This is meaningful extra disclosure, though it does not detail what happens if the network is unavailable or how snapshot verification is triggered.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the core purpose and action set. Every sentence adds behavioral or scoping information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has eight parameters and no output schema, so the description should carry more of the burden for explaining what a 'plan' produces or returns. It adequately covers scope, side effects, and network behavior, but it does not describe the plan output, possible validation failures, or the expected next step after planning.

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 high at 75%, so much of the parameter meaning is already captured in the schema. The description adds value by enumerating the actions and highlighting the trust-reset semantics, but it does not further clarify the relationships between parameters like providerId, manifestUrl, and expectedProviderId.

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 a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('signed personal provider'), then enumerates the full set of supported actions: Add, Update, Configure, Remove, and Trust Reset. It also distinguishes itself from the apply sibling by explicitly stating that planning never writes configuration or snapshots.

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 implies when to use this tool ('Planning never writes configuration or snapshots'), which suggests a preview-before-apply workflow. However, it never explicitly names an alternative such as apply_provider_source_change or states when to use this tool instead of that one.

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