ecp_storage_bd_set_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Set' which implies mutation, but does not mention that this overwrites existing credentials, that it is irreversible, or that confirmation (confirm=true) is required. The schema enforces confirm as const true, but the description does not explain this safety mechanism. The description also omits any side effects or prerequisites, leaving the agent uncertain about the operation's impact.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the critical client_id format. No wasted words; every element adds value. This is exemplary conciseness for a simple configuration tool.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only three parameters and no output schema, so the baseline completeness requirement is modest. However, the description omits the confirm requirement, does not mention that it overwrites existing credentials, and does not explain the relationship to backup operations (e.g., that this must be set before backups can work). Given the lack of annotations, these omissions leave the agent with gaps in understanding the operation's full effect and prerequisites.

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 compensate. It adds crucial meaning to client_id by specifying the format '<tenant_id>.<install_id>', which is not in the schema. It merely names client_secret without format details, and completely omits the confirm parameter. While the most complex parameter is addressed, the other two receive little to no added value, leaving a partial coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'storage.bd backup credentials' with a specific format for client_id. It unambiguously differentiates from sibling ecp_storage_bd_get_config which reads configuration, and from backup operations that use these credentials.

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 it – when configuring backup credentials for storage.bd. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the sibling get_config is obvious. The context of setting credentials is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with other tools.

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