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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description expands on this with 'no refund and no undo'. It also discloses the unusual first-call flow: a placeholder signature returns details.expected with the exact message to sign, including EIP-191 and ed25519 formats. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is cluttered with a long, unrelated feedback pitch ('POST /feedback... Every report is read and analysed daily') that does not help an agent select or invoke storage_delete. The repeated 'FREE' phrasing and run-on sentence structure also reduce clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the destructive consequence, ownership requirement, auth behavior, and all required parameters through the schema. It could state what a successful deletion returns, but the information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds real value by explaining the signature workflow: send a placeholder signature once and the refusal returns the exact message to sign, with specific format variants for 'signature'. This goes meaningfully beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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 names the exact action ('delete an object you own') and its consequence ('free its bytes'), which is specific and unmistakable. It also distinguishes storage_delete from its siblings (storage_read, storage_list, storage_buy, storage_renew) by being the only deletion operation.

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?

It states the precondition for use ('object you own', 'paying wallet', 'no account') and warns 'no refund and no undo', giving clear context for when deletion is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as storage_renew, so it stops short of full exclusionary routing guidance.

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