create_storage_config

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

The annotations are all false, providing only that the operation is mutating, non-idempotent, and non-destructive — a weak signal set. The description adds 'create a new' (implying state mutation) but discloses no side effects: no mention of duplicate-name behavior, whether set_as_default unsets other configs, or per-storage-type credential handling. With annotations this thin, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it.

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?

A single ten-word sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with zero wasted words. It is efficient in structure, even though its brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.

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 4 parameters, a nested config object whose structure is completely unspecified, no output schema, and all-false annotations, one sentence cannot adequately equip an agent. The description omits return-value expectations, per-storage-type credential shapes, set_as_default semantics, and duplicate/error behavior.

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 25% (just 'config: Storage credentials'), and the description adds nothing about any parameter — no naming conventions, no explanation of storage_type options, no structure for the nested config object across the three storage types, and no meaning for set_as_default. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's near-total silence on parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('storage configuration'), and adds purpose context ('for saving scraped data'), which ties it to the scraper domain. It is distinguishable from update/delete/list storage configs by the create verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named create_config sibling.

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?

'for saving scraped data' implies when an agent would use this tool — when configuring where scraped output is persisted. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that create_config covers non-storage configurations, and no pointer to update_storage_config for modifying existing ones. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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