update_object_storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – the uniqueness requirement that can cause failure – but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what the response returns.

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 core statement is front-loaded and short, but the first sentence is literally repeated ('Modifies the display name of object storage' appears twice), wasting space in an already tiny description.

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 mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers what changes and one failure condition. It leaves out permissions, response shape, and effects on other settings, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by making explicit that only the display name is modified, clarifying that objectStorageId and x-trace-id are addressing/tracing rather than update targets. This resolves ambiguity the tool name alone would create.

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 ('Modifies the display name of object storage') and the PATCH path, and usefully narrows scope to the display name rather than the whole resource implied by the tool name. It does not distinguish itself from the many nearby siblings such as retrieve_object_storage or upgrade_object_storage.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The only constraint given is that the display name must be unique, which is a validation rule rather than routing guidance.

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