put_storage_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' and lists error codes. It does not mention whether changes are immediate, require a reboot, or are reversible. The impact of setting external_pm_enabled or spindown timeout is not explained.

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 very concise, with a single sentence followed by a list of error codes. It front-loads the purpose efficiently, though the error codes could be considered extra detail. Overall, it is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explanatory context about the StorageConfig resource and the implications of modifying these settings, which is needed for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 'Update the StorageConfig', specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like put_storage_disk_id by focusing on the configuration object. However, it does not elaborate on what specific aspects it updates (e.g., external disk power management), so it lacks full specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_storage_config or other put tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about workflows (e.g., whether to fetch current config first).

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