Update Storage Box Access Settings

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not add context beyond 'update'. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether disabling a protocol closes active connections), authorization needs, or that changes are applied immediately. However, it does not contradict annotations and provides minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently lists the relevant protocols. No redundant words or unnecessary explanations. Every part of the description is essential.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, all booleans plus ID), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the purpose. The schema handles parameter details. No output schema exists, but update tools typically return confirmation. The description does not mention return values, but annotations (idempotentHint) imply predictable behavior. Completness is slightly reduced by lacking mention of the required 'id' parameter.

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%, so each parameter is already documented with clear semantics (e.g., boolean for each protocol). The description reaffirms the protocols but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value.

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 action (update) and the resource (storage box access settings). It enumerates the specific protocols (SSH, Samba, WebDAV, ZFS, external reachability) that can be toggled, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While sibling tools like hetzner_update_storage_box or hetzner_update_storage_box_subaccount_access_settings exist, this description differentiates by focusing on access protocols.

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. For example, there is no mention of when to use hetzner_update_storage_box (which updates other box settings) or hetzner_change_storage_box_protection. The description does not specify prerequisites, not-to-use conditions, or recommended contexts.

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