Manage UC storage credentials & external locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description goes beyond by stating 'All changes are SECURITY_SENSITIVE, delete is also DESTRUCTIVE' and provides a safety classification table mapping each action to its risk level. It also notes 'Secret fields are never returned', which is critical behavioral context not captured by annotations. This is rich, non-redundant disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into action-specific blocks. It's dense but efficient, with no wasted sentences. The safety classification at the end is a helpful summary. Minor deduction for being quite long, but every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (10 params, 6 actions, security implications) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It explains the spec fields, validation behavior, safety classifications, and secret field handling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds spec field details (aws_iam_role {role_arn}, etc.) which is useful but largely mirrors what the schema's spec description implies. The description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it manages 'Unity Catalog storage credentials and external locations', naming both sub-resources explicitly. The six actions (create, get, list, update, delete, validate) are enumerated, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like manage_uc_connections or manage_uc_objects. It's a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity.

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 field-level guidance for each action's spec (create/update, validate), which is clear contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_lakebase_credential or manage_uc_connections. The action semantics are implied but there's no explicit when/when-not routing.

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