llm_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'discover' is safe and read-only, 'add' writes securely and validates keys. However, it omits details like whether 'add' overwrites or appends, or side effects of multiple actions.

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 well-structured with a bullet list of actions, making it scannable. The first sentence states the overall purpose. While it covers many actions, it remains relatively concise without unnecessary detail.

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 no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers all actions and parameters. It does not explain return values, but output schema is present. It could mention prerequisites or error cases, but overall it is sufficiently detailed for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each action and which parameters apply to which action, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. For instance, provider is described as 'for add, test, and provider actions'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set up and manage API providers, hooks, and routing enforcement.' It lists specific actions, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like llm_providers or llm_route, which might overlap.

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 usage by enumerating actions and their effects, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't direct users to llm_route for routing tasks already handled.

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