provider_admin_mutate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool is gated by configuration, routed through approval, and audited. This gives the agent a clear picture that invoking it has real, tracked 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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence. It immediately communicates mutability, gives representative examples, and includes the gating/audit behavior without any filler or repetition.

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 description adequately covers what the tool does, when it is usable, and where the operationId comes from. It does not describe the response format, and there is no output schema, which is a minor gap; for a CLI-admin wrapper this is not a critical omission but the description could be slightly more complete.

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 100%, with both provider and operationId already documented including an enum and an example. The description adds no significant parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Execute a MUTATING provider CLI admin operation') with concrete examples such as mcp add/remove, login/logout, plugin install/remove, and session delete/archive. The mutating qualifier clearly separates this tool from read-only siblings like provider_admin_list and provider_admin_run.

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 clear use context: this is for mutating admin operations only, requires allow_mutating_cli_admin_ops=true, and is routed through approval and audit. It also implies operationId should come from provider_admin_list, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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