iaas_replace_storage_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing behavioral: for a PUT-style replacement it never states that omitted fields in the body may be reset/removed, what permissions are needed, or what the effect on in-flight deployments is. With annotations covering the basics, a low score reflects zero added context for a full-replacement mutation.

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?

It is very short, but the second sentence duplicates the first almost verbatim and the third is just the HTTP path, so a third of the content is redundant rather than informative. The verb is front-loaded, which is the only structural strength.

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?

The tool takes a large nested specification object and performs a full replacement, yet the description never explains replace-vs-patch semantics, required vs optional body fields, or consequences for omitted fields. With no output schema and no annotations covering mutation effects, the description leaves the agent guessing on the most consequential aspect of the call.

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 every field (id, body and its nested StorageProfileSpecification properties, apiVersion) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not explain the replacement semantics of the required body — which matters given that name, regionId and defaultItem are mandatory — nor does it explain the apiVersion parameter.

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 verb ("Replace") and resource ("storage profile") and gives the REST endpoint PUT /iaas/api/storage-profiles/{id}, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, the second line only restates the first with the word "id" added, and it does nothing to distinguish this generic replacement from the many sibling storage-profile tools (iaas_update_aws_storage_profile, iaas_update_vsphere_storage_profile, iaas_update_storage_profile_associations, iaas_create_storage_profile).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no indication of when an agent should replace a generic storage profile rather than one of the provider-specific update tools or iaas_update_storage_profile_associations. Only the HTTP path is given, which is not usable selection guidance for an agent picking among siblings.

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