Create an Endpoint Storage (S3 bucket for logs)

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the secret key is transmitted once and never echoed back, and credentials must be scoped to the bucket rather than reused. It still doesn't say what the call returns or whether a partial failure leaves registered storage behind.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, ordered as purpose → credential constraint → next step. The security-critical 'never invent or reuse other credentials' line is placed before the activation instruction, which is where an agent should hit it.

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?

Covers what to supply, what not to supply, and how to activate log export afterwards — enough for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. The remaining gap is the return value (e.g. a storage ID or name to reference in update_app_version), which the absence of an output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters including the enums for output_format and container_log_version. The description only reinforces credential semantics (bucket-scoped key pair) and never touches dry_run, output_format or container_log_version, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Register') and resource (an S3-compatible bucket as Endpoint Storage) and immediately explains the payoff: container logs exported there at deployment end. That scope plus the named provider examples clearly separates it from edgegap_list_endpoint_storage, edgegap_delete_endpoint_storage and edgegap_create_pull_profile.

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 the operational prerequisites (developer-supplied bucket, endpoint URL, bucket-scoped key pair, never the Edgegap API token) and the follow-up step: set endpoint_storage on the version via edgegap_update_app_version. It doesn't state when not to use this tool, e.g. reuse of existing storage or rotation flow, so it falls short of a 5.

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