update_storage_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as potential overwriting, required existence of the storage_id, or consequences of setting as default. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add any unique behavioral insight.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise and grammatically clear, though it omits important detail. It earns its place but is at the edge of being too terse.

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?

This tool has 4 params including a nested object, a destructive hint, no output schema, and many sibling config tools. The description provides almost no context about what a storage configuration update entails, what fields are updatable, how it relates to the 'config' object, or what happens when set_as_default is used. The agent is left without enough information to call it correctly or distinguish it from update_config.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning but does not. It never mentions storage_id (required), config, name, or set_as_default. An agent would have to infer all parameter semantics from the schema alone, which is insufficient given the nested config object and boolean flag.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the specific resource 'storage configuration', which distinguishes it from create/delete storage configs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling update_config tool, so the resource type alone carries the distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_config, create_storage_config, or delete_storage_config. The description implies it is for modifying existing storage configurations, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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