update_storage_box_subaccount_access_settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds two facts annotations cannot express: the update is partial (omitted fields preserved) and it is asynchronous, returning an Action that must be polled via get_storage_box_action until success. What remains unexplained is the destructive consequence itself — e.g. that disabling access flags can lock a subaccount out.

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 tight clauses: the operation with its partial-update caveat, then the return type and polling target. No filler and the caveat sits next to the verb it modifies. Abbreviations like 'incl.' keep it short, though slightly at the cost of readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent the call returns an Action and names the exact polling tool, which is the key missing piece for an async mutation. Parameters are fully schema-documented. The gap is the absence of any warning about the destructive effect of the flags it toggles and of any permission requirements.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description names only 'readonly' explicitly; its real contribution is the partial-update rule that governs how all optional booleans are applied, not per-field meaning.

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: updating a subaccount's access settings on a storage box. The possessive 'subaccount's' plus 'access settings' is enough for an agent to separate it from the box-level update_storage_box_access_settings and from update_storage_box_subaccount, but the distinction is implied rather than stated outright.

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 parenthetical 'partial: omitted fields are unchanged' tells the agent how to call it (send only the fields to change), which is real usage guidance. It never says when to prefer this over the box-level access-settings sibling or update_storage_box_subaccount, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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