storage_config_test

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

The description declares a significant behavior: it writes and reads a test file to verify credentials and permissions, which implies potential side effects on the storage bucket. It also notes it falls back to existing config credentials. However, there are no annotations, and it doesn't disclose what happens on failure (e.g., whether it creates/destroys artifacts, cost implications of writes).

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?

Two sentences, efficient and to the point. Every sentence carries meaningful information: the first explains the tool's function, the second clarifies the credential fallback behavior. No wasted words.

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 test tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core mechanism (write+read test file) and the fallback credential behavior. However, it doesn't specify what success/failure looks like in the response, whether the test file is cleaned up afterward, or how the many optional parameters interact when some but not all are provided.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented (bucket, region, endpoint, provider, accountId, accessKeyId, forcePathStyle, secretAccessKey). The description adds the useful context that credentials may come from existing config if not provided, which is meaningful beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 tool tests an external storage connection by writing and reading a test file to verify credentials and permissions. This is a specific verb+resource+method that distinguishes it from config_get/update tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 what the tool does (tests credentials/permissions) and that it uses existing config credentials if not provided. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over storage_config_get or storage_config_update, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that a config must exist first).

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