Изменение S3-хранилища

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a constraint about mutually exclusive parameters, but it does not explain operational details such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the critical constraint.

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 an update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameters, and the main constraint. It does not mention prerequisites like bucket existence, but the given information is sufficient for typical use. Minor gaps remain but not critical.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping configurator parameters (disk, configurator_id) and explicitly stating the exclusivity rule, which clarifies the intended parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.

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 updates S3 storage parameters, listing the specific mutable fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_bucket, delete_bucket, and update_bucket_user.

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?

While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the verb 'изменяет' and sibling context make the intended use evident. It provides a key usage constraint: preset_id and configurator cannot be passed together, which is practical guidance.

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