contabo_objectStorage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds context the annotations cannot carry, namely that the running server is read-only by default and rejects writes until an environment flag is set, and it flags 'cancel' as [DESTRUCTIVE]. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation booleans, though it does not describe permission scoping or reversibility per operation (e.g. upgrade's no-downgrade rule is left to the schema).

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?

Front-loads the scope and the read-only constraint before the operation list, and every bullet maps to a real operation rather than padding. It is longer than a single-line tool description but the length is justified by eight distinct operations, with only minor redundancy between the header sentence and the operation list.

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 no output schema, so return values are undescribed, and pagination/filter behavior for list and listDataCenters is left implicit. Against that, the description routes the agent to contabo_reference for the full parameter documentation and flags the one destructive operation, which is enough for correct operation selection.

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 per-operation parameters are already well documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description contributes the structural insight that each operation has its own validated parameter set and defers full parameter docs to contabo_reference, but adds no per-field meaning of its own.

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?

Names the specific resource (Contabo S3-compatible object storages and data centers) and enumerates all eight operations with a distinct verb each (list, create, get, update, upgrade, stats, cancel, listDataCenters). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like contabo_instances or contabo_firewalls purely from the resource name and the operation inventory.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ('Choose exactly one operation') and a critical activation constraint (write operations are rejected unless the server is started with CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1), plus a pointer to contabo_reference for parameter docs. It does not name when to prefer a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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