storage_gateway_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context: 'Smart identifier resolution: Use gateway label or ID' and 'Returns: Success confirmation'. But it does not disclose whether tags are replaced or merged, what happens when optional fields are omitted, or any side effects of updating a gateway, so behavioral transparency is only moderate.

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 short and well-structured: a one-line overview, a useful smart-identifier note, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded and has no filler, though the Returns line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For a simple three-parameter update with an output schema, the description covers the identifier resolution and every parameter, which is sufficient for basic invocation. The main missing context is update semantics and routing among related storage_gateway_* tools, but these gaps do not make correct invocation ambiguous.

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 compensate. It explains all three parameters: gateway_identifier accepts a label or ID, label is the new label, and tags are the new tags. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though the exact update behavior for tags remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 storage gateway configuration' and enumerates the specific fields being changed (label, tags). It is distinguishable from create/delete storage gateway tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with storage_gateway_optimize_gateway_configuration, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is reasonably implied by the verb 'Update' and the parameter descriptions ('New label', 'New tags'), and the smart identifier resolution note gives a helpful prerequisite. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over storage_gateway_create or other storage gateway alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the selection context.

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