Field Storage Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no irreversibility note, no statement of which fields are overwritten versus left untouched, no side effects on existing field data. For a mutation tool this is a total disclosure 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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single sentence that consumes space without conveying information. There is no structure to front-load because there is no content.

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 presence of an output schema excuses the description from explaining return values, but for a four-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and zero annotations, the description should establish at minimum what a storage config is, what settings contains, and what changes are safe. It establishes none of that.

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 0% across four parameters (config_id required, plus label, settings, description). The description mentions no parameter at all, so the agent gets no meaning for config_id, no hint that settings is a free-form object, and no note that label/description are nullable.

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 'Update a field storage configuration' is essentially a restatement of the tool name field_storage_update — it adds no scope, no differentiating detail. It doesn't distinguish this from siblings such as field_storage_get, field_storage_create, or field_config_update, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus field_config_update, field_storage_create, or any of the other ~200 siblings. Nothing about prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or what a 'field storage configuration' update implies in Drupal terms.

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