update_storage_path

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, and the description adds valuable PATCH semantics: only supplied fields are changed. This is important behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey, though it does not disclose error behavior or permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the verb, resource, and PATCH behavior before listing fields and alternatives. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without repetition or padding.

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 single-resource partial update with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what is updated, which fields are editable, the PATCH behavior, and where to go for a related but different action. Schema coverage handles the remaining parameter constraints.

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 only 50%, so the description compensates by listing all editable fields and adding meaning to the previously undocumented 'match' parameter as a 'matching pattern.' It also clarifies 'path' as a path template, but some fields like name and matching_algorithm rely on their obvious names or existing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on ONE storage path,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from related actions by noting that assigning a storage path to documents belongs to edit_documents_bulk or update_document, not this tool.

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 description clearly indicates this tool is for updating one storage path and explicitly names alternatives for the separate assignment use case. It does not enumerate all possible alternatives like create_storage_path or delete_storage_path, but the provided routing is clear enough for most agent decisions.

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