Update Storage Box Subaccount Access Settings

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds context by listing the settings, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether partial updates are supported, whether subaccount must exist, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description provides adequate but not enhanced 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?

The description is a single sentence, 17 words, front-loaded with action and resource. It efficiently enumerates the adjustable settings without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations. The description explains the purpose and lists settings, but it does not clarify that optional parameters retain their values if not provided, nor does it hint at the response format. While schema coverage is full, the brief description leaves some contextual gaps for a mutation tool.

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 clear description. The tool description merely lists the same settings without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies as the description adds no additional value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'access settings of a Storage Box subaccount', listing the exact settings (read-only, SSH, Samba, WebDAV, external reachability). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'hetzner_update_storage_box_access_settings' and 'hetzner_update_storage_box_subaccount' by targeting subaccount access settings specifically.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Given the large sibling list, scenarios where this tool is appropriate are implied but not stated, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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