verify_storage_destination

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. Description adds critical context beyond these: it writes and removes a probe object, which explains the mutation and its transient nature, and specifies permission requirements. It doesn't explain side effects like what verification state is updated or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with action, then mechanism, then prerequisites. No waste.

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?

Given 1 param, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, that it writes/removes, and permissions. Lacks details on return format or error behavior, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and there is 1 parameter. Description gives no details about destination_id format, but with only one required parameter, the agent can infer it needs a destination identifier. The baseline for 0 params is 4; here it's 0% coverage but 1 param, so description doesn't compensate but the parameter is self-explanatory from the tool context.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Test access to a configured bucket.' Distinguishes from sibling list_storage_destinations by emphasizing verification rather than listing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The action is concrete and implies a probe operation.

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?

States required permissions ('Requires storage:write and owner/admin') but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives. An agent can infer it's for checking destination health, but no conditions 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.