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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that Ankra creates and verifies the bucket asynchronously in the background, that keys are kept by Ankra and never passed through this call, and that credentials.write permission is required. The annotations only carry the safety flags, so this description supplies the real behavioral picture.

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?

Front-loads the core action and layers prerequisites and follow-up neatly. The 'twin of ankra bucket create' parenthetical and provider list are slightly redundant, but overall the sentences each carry useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the async model and pointing to get_object_storage_bucket for the ready/error result. Prerequisites, permission requirements, and provider-specific key handling are all covered, leaving nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including that credential_id's provider decides placement. The description reinforces the credential/key relationship ('No keys travel here'), but adds little parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an object storage bucket') and names the four supported providers, so the agent knows exactly what domain this operates in. It also distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by naming get_object_storage_bucket for status polling.

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?

Gives clear context and prerequisites (requires credentials.write; a Hetzner bucket needs the Object Storage key pair already on the credential) and routes the agent to get_object_storage_bucket once creation completes. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct alternative tool comparison.

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