Update storage path

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

The sentence 'Only the fields you pass are changed; omitted fields keep their current value' reveals important merge behavior not captured by annotations. It complements the annotation profile (readOnlyHint=false) and adds value by explaining the update semantics.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the most important behavioral qualifier. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers partial-update semantics but says nothing about return values, errors, or authorization requirements, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. The schema handles parameters well, so this is adequate for a CRUD update but not 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 75%, and the schema already documents the parameters well, including path templates, matching_algorithm values, and permissions behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Partially update a storage path,' which states a specific verb, resource, and semantic nuance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_storage_path, delete_storage_path, get_storage_path, and test_storage_path.

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 implies use when modifying an existing storage path and clarifies partial-update semantics, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. It lacks explicit routing guidance versus create_storage_path or other storage-path operations.

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