object_storage_regenerate_keys

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

Since annotations are none, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns 'Object Storage information with new access keys', which implies the destruction of old keys. However, it does not warn about the irreversible nature of key regeneration, the impact on any services using the old keys, or any authentication requirements. Some of this is inferred but not explicitly stated, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences: one for purpose, one for parameter explanation, and one for return value. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more compact by merging the parameter and returns into prose. Efficiency is high, and it is well-structured.

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?

There is an output schema provided, so return values need not be detailed in the description. However, the description is still minimal. It lacks warnings about the consequences of key regeneration (e.g., breaking integrations), any mention of rate limits or permission requirements, and specific usage context. For a tool with simple inputs, it is adequate but not comprehensive, leaving notable gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverageholistically, but the description explicitly explains the parameter 'object_storage_id' as 'The Object Storage ID or label (e.g., "my-storage", "backup-bucket", or UUID)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. It compensates for the schema's lack of detail, meeting the baseline for a single-parameter tool.

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 'Regenerate' with the specific resource 'S3 access keys for an Object Storage instance'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by specifying the action of regenerating keys, which is unique among the object_storage_* siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it is implied by the unique action of regenerating keys among the object_storage_* siblings. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor is there guidance on prerequisites like needing to have an object storage instance already created. This is adequate for a simple regenerate operation but lacks explicit routing to alternatives.

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