provider_admin_run

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing that output is redacted and that mutating inputs are rejected, which are behavioral guarantees an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the read-only nature, names the source of valid operations, and states the rejection constraint in the same breath.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only pass-through tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation source, the read-only constraint, and redacted output behavior. It does not describe output structure, but output shape is operation-dependent and would not be meaningfully generalized.

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%: provider is an enum with descriptions, and operationId has a description plus example. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying operationId must come from provider_admin_list, which tells the agent where to discover valid operation IDs.

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 names a specific verb ('Execute'), a specific resource ('provider CLI admin operation'), and restricts scope to READ-ONLY operations sourced from provider_admin_list. The phrase 'Rejects mutating operations' clearly separates it from the mutating sibling tool provider_admin_mutate.

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 explicitly tells the agent that operation IDs come from provider_admin_list and that mutating operations will be rejected, providing a clear when-not. It does not explicitly name provider_admin_mutate as the alternative for mutating operations, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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