storage_container_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/mutation profile is covered structurally; the description reinforces it with [WRITE][risk=medium]. It adds the default replication factor and config-based target behavior, but says nothing about permissions required, name-collision behavior, or non-idempotency beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and risk tag, followed by a tight Args list where every line carries information. No filler sentences, though the tagged-prefix plus args block is slightly more structural overhead than a single crisp sentence would need.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, defaults, and risk level. Gaps remain around failure modes and required privileges, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters are explained with meaning beyond the schema, including defaults ('Copies kept per block (default 2)') and the omit-to-use-default semantics of target. It does not specify the expected format of cluster_ext_id beyond its source, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and resource ('Create a storage container on a cluster') with an explicit [WRITE] tag, which cleanly separates it from the sibling read tools (storage_container_list) and the mutate siblings (storage_container_update/delete). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the create verb and the [WRITE] tag, and one workflow hint is given (cluster_ext_id 'from cluster_list'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not guidance. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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