Update Storage Box Subaccount

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

The description does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). It adds minimal value beyond the annotations, merely stating the action without detailing idempotency or partial update behavior. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so the description's lack of elaboration is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is informative, with no unnecessary repetition or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's action and scope.

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 5 parameters (2 required), lack of output schema, and no return value description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that it performs a partial update (only provided fields are changed), any prerequisites, or what the response indicates (e.g., success or updated object). More context is needed for an agent to use it 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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description lists the fields but adds no extra information beyond the schema, such as constraints or formatting rules. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'Storage Box subaccount', listing the specific fields affected (name, description, labels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hetzner_change_storage_box_subaccount_home_directory and hetzner_update_storage_box_subaccount_access_settings.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for updating basic metadata only, nor does it exclude other operations like home directory changes or access settings, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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