set_bucket_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false; the description adds the credential requirement (admin API) and the reversibility note plus a medium risk tag, which annotations alone do not convey. It does not explain the effect of lowering a quota on in-flight writes, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Risk/type tags are front-loaded, the core operation is stated in one sentence, and the parameter block is scannable with no filler. Every line conveys 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, reversibility, dry-run, and all four parameters. It omits the operational consequence of a reduced quota (write failures) and any error/response expectations, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: size_bytes explains that 0 clears the quota (beyond the schema's bare 'integer'), target explains the default-when-omitted behavior, dry_run explains preview semantics, and bucket_name points at bucket_ls as the source of valid values.

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 ('Set (>0) or clear (0) the bucket hard quota'), and the parenthetical clarifies both directions of the operation. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling bucket_quota_get (read) and set_bucket_policy (different resource).

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 context an agent needs: admin-capable credentials required, dry_run for previewing, and bucket_name sourced 'from bucket_ls'. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over set_bucket_policy or when not to use it, but the operational preconditions are clear.

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