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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent write; the description adds substantial context beyond them: it restarts the app, sets/unsets S3_PUBLIC_URL, exposes files with no gate or app request, keeps the file list private, and surfaces a warning to relay for restricted projects. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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 action, then contrasts public vs private, then appends operational side effects (restart, warning). The middle public/private contrast is slightly repetitive with the schema, but every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padding.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it fully covers the mutable behavior, side effects, and the safety-relevant warning. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 already 100% and the 'public' property description nearly duplicates the prose in the main description. The added value is marginal, though the surrounding context ('files bypass the gate', 'restricted project warning') does clarify consequences of the flag beyond the schema's literal text.

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+resource ('set storage visibility') and immediately scopes it to a spawnpoint project's bucket, tying it to the add_storage resource created by a sibling. An agent can distinguish it from set_visibility, add_storage, and remove_storage without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for the value choice ('right for a public gallery, wrong for user documents'), which is the key decision. It does not, however, name or exclude sibling tools the agent might reach for instead (e.g. set_visibility vs this), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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