update_storage_box

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

The parenthetical 'labels replace the whole set' is genuinely valuable because the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, so an agent could otherwise assume labels are merged and silently wipe existing labels. That said, the description says nothing about permissions, whether an empty object clears all labels, or what a successful mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive clarification placed immediately after the field it modifies. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 small three-parameter mutation with annotations carrying idempotency and safety hints, it is close to sufficient. Gaps remain around clearing labels, permission requirements, and behavior when only one field is supplied, which matter for an update tool with no output schema.

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?

With schema coverage at 33% (only 'id' documented), the description must carry weight; it does clarify label replacement semantics and the optional 'and/or' nature of the two fields. However, the structure of the labels object (arbitrary string key/value pairs, any limits, key naming rules) and the meaning of the required id are not explained.

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 (update) and resource (Storage Box) and scopes it to exactly two mutable fields, name and labels. That field scope implicitly separates it from siblings like update_storage_box_access_settings or change_storage_box_type, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or permissions, and no routing to alternatives such as change_storage_box_protection for settings that are not name/labels. The only usage signal is the field list itself, which must be inferred.

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