edgegate_setup_byo_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses auth requirements (owner role), enterprise restriction (402), workflow state (creates pending grant, returns External ID), and instructs disconnect for non-pending grants. It also clarifies that the IAM role is created by the agent running the returned CLI commands, not by the tool itself.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: enterprise restriction, core behavior, workflow pairing, alternative comparison, auth requirement, and error handling. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, external AWS steps, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what is returned (External ID and CLI commands), how to finalize (attach_byo_role), when to prefer it, prerequisites, and error scenarios. Enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, though it does reference the workflow context in which these parameters are used.

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 tool's function: it creates a pending BYO storage grant with EdgeGate, returns the External ID, and returns AWS CLI commands for creating an IAM role. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending it over edgegate_register_byo_bucket and pairing it with edgegate_attach_byo_role.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over edgegate_register_byo_bucket for new setups' and 'Pair with edgegate_attach_byo_role to finalize.' It also states prerequisites (Enterprise, owner role) and error handling (402 for non-Enterprise, disconnect first if non-pending grant exists).

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