block_storage_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It clearly states the constraint that 'size can only increase, not decrease', which is critical behavioral information, and mentions that it returns a success confirmation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or what happens to the volume during the update (e.g., downtime).

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 concise, with a summary and an args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Smart identifier resolution' line could be integrated into the parameter description. The structure is clear and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (3 params, all optional except one), the description covers the parameters well and mentions the return type. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like block_storage_attach or block_storage_create, and does not explain any prerequisites or effects beyond the size constraint. The output schema exists but is not described, so the description's mention of 'Success confirmation' is minimal.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so for all three: volume_identifier with 'Volume label or ID', size_gb with 'New size in GB (can only increase, not decrease)', and label with 'New label'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and optionality. The descriptor for volume_identifier is helpful in explaining smart identifier resolution.

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 'Update block storage volume configuration' using specific verbs and resources. It also lists the updatable fields (size, label), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like block_storage_delete, block_storage_attach by focusing on configuration updates. The smart identifier resolution note clarifies the accepted input.

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 explains the purpose and the parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the volume must be unattached, or when to use block_storage_create or delete. The 'smart identifier resolution' gives context but not usage guidance.

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