edgegate_attach_byo_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the internal verification steps (sts:AssumeRole + deny-by-default HEAD probe), the success outcome ('flips the grant to active'), the failure behavior (typed BYO_* error with a checklist), and idempotent re-callability, which is all beyond what the schema conveys.

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, front-loaded with the phase context, and every sentence adds critical behavioral detail without fluff. The structure is tight and informative.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, exact sequence, success/failure semantics, error format, and retry behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in the context of the broader setup workflow.

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?

The schema provides a detailed description for role_arn (50% coverage), and the description reinforces its purpose and re-callability with the same value. However, workspace_id is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('attach') and resource ('BYO role'), explicitly identifies it as 'Phase 2 of edgegate_setup_byo_storage', and clarifies the exact action (handing the Role ARN to EdgeGate for verification). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgegate_setup_byo_storage and edgegate_register_byo_bucket.

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 when to use it ('Phase 2 of edgegate_setup_byo_storage') and when it can be re-called ('after fixing IAM'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the phase-based context and retry condition provide strong usage guidance.

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