storage_config_update

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — credentials are encrypted at rest — but omits whether existing config is overwritten, whether changes take effect immediately, and any permission requirements for what is effectively a write of sensitive secrets.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then provider scope, then the security note. No waste, though the provider list is somewhat redundant with the schema's provider examples.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly avoids describing return values, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage carry the safety and field details. It could still mention required fields (provider, bucket) or the encryption/validation flow, but for a config upsert it is largely complete.

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 ten params are documented in the schema; the description only echoes provider examples already present in the provider property. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb pair plus resource ('Create or update external storage configuration') and scopes it to S3-compatible storage. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like storage_config_get/delete/test by name and content, though the description never explicitly names those 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus storage_config_test, storage_config_providers, or storage_config_delete, nor any prerequisites (e.g., admin scope, or that credentials should be validated via the test tool afterward). 'Create or update' implies upsert semantics but usage conditions are left entirely to inference.

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