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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context by explaining that autoscaling automatically purchases storage capacity monthly up to a limit, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand ongoing billing implications.

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 short but repetitive: the first sentence duplicates the title, and the second sentence restates part of the first. It could be condensed into one clear sentence without losing meaning, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention irreversible aspects like 'no downgrade possible' (only present in a schema parameter description) or billing consequences, and it lacks guidance on prerequisites or return values. The description alone would not fully prepare an agent to use this tool safely.

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?

The description references 'size' and 'autoscaling limit', which map to the totalPurchasedSpaceTB and autoScaling parameters, but it does not provide explicit parameter names or details. The nested schema does include descriptions for these two fields, but the main description adds only partial semantic reinforcement.

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 ('Upgrade object storage size') and resource ('object storage'), and also covers the secondary purpose of updating autoscaling settings. This is clear and helps distinguish it from general updateObjectStorage or other storage tools.

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 the tool (when upgrading size or adjusting autoscaling) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like updateObjectStorage, so guidance is only implicit.

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