change_storage_box_protection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is asynchronous and returns an Action that must be polled via get_storage_box_action until status is success. It does not state permission requirements or whether the change is immediately effective.

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?

Two short sentences: the action first, then the required polling step. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter mutation, the description covers what it does, its destructive nature (reinforced by annotations), and the async completion workflow. Minor gaps remain around permissions and the inverted boolean meaning, but nothing essential to calling it 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds nothing about them. Notably it does not resolve the counterintuitive semantics where delete=true means 'prevent deletion', which an agent could misread from the tool name.

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 pair and resource: 'Enable/disable delete protection for a Storage Box.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like change_storage_box_type or delete_storage_box. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named change_protection, which leaves a small ambiguity.

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 operational follow-up guidance ('poll get_storage_box_action until status is success'), which is useful, but says nothing about when to choose this over alternatives such as change_protection or update_storage_box_access_settings. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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