Update object storage bucket

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

Annotations already declare this tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether updates are partial or full, auth needs). Since annotations cover basic behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could include more detail, it is efficient with no wasted 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?

With no output schema and four parameters including a nested object (cors_settings), the description is too minimal. It does not explain update semantics (partial vs full replacement), expected return values, or errors. Lacks completeness for a mutation tool.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 'Update an object storage bucket' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (object storage bucket). It is not a tautology but lacks differentiation from other sibling update tools like update_application or update_domain.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus create_bucket, delete_bucket, or other update tools. There is no context on prerequisites or conditions.

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