user_storage_manage_by_name_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It signals destruction only implicitly via 'DELETE'/'Удалить данные', but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, the confirm:true gating, or what happens without confirmation — all of which the agent must know for a destructive operation.

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 text is short and front-loads the method and path, but 'Тег: Хранилище' and 'Спека: user' are internal API-doc metadata that add no value to an agent deciding whether or how to call the tool. Half the content is noise.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the confirm/preview behavior and destruction semantics. Instead it stops at the route line, leaving the agent reliant entirely on the schema for the safety-critical context.

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% and the schema already documents name, confirm (preview vs. execution), and user_id (admin impersonation), so the description adds nothing on parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('DELETE /storage/manage/{name}', 'Удалить данные из хранилища'), so the basic purpose is inferable. However it mostly restates the tool name and gives no way to distinguish this endpoint from the sibling user_storage_manage_delete or user_storage_manage_by_name_get/put/post, which share the same storage namespace.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as user_storage_manage_delete (delete without name) or the admin_storage_manage_by_name_* variants. The only context is the HTTP route, which an agent cannot use to choose between siblings.

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