storage_config_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one valuable behavioral fact — 'Credentials are encrypted at rest' — which is useful reassurance. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors: whether this is a full replacement (requires all credentials each call) vs partial update, credential validation timing, idempotency semantics, or what happens to existing config. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Three concise sentences focused on provider support and security. Front-loaded with the core verb+action. The provider examples list is slightly verbose but useful for agent selection. No wasted words or redundancy with schema fields. Could be tightened but is reasonably efficient.

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 10-parameter configuration mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't clarify required credential combinations, whether this replaces the entire configuration, or behavioral consequences (e.g., is storage switched immediately upon activation?). It does convey the key security property and provider scope. Adequate but could meaningfully improve with update-vs-create semantics and credential requirements.

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 documents all 10 parameters well. The description adds some value by explaining the provider list meaning (S3-compatible) and the encryption detail, but doesn't extend parameter semantics (e.g., which params are required together, what happens if only some are provided, endpoint vs region relationships). 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 verb+resource ('Create or update external storage configuration') and specifies supported providers. It's distinguishable from siblings like storage_config_get, storage_config_delete, and storage_config_test, though it doesn't explicitly name these 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 states it supports S3-compatible providers and lists examples, giving some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explain when to use update vs create semantics, when to choose this over storage_config_test/get/delete, or any preconditions (e.g., needing provider list first). No explicit exclusions or alternatives named.

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