user_storage_manage_post

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, yet it only restates that this is a POST that changes storage. The critical rw-mode preview behavior (the 'confirm' parameter that returns a preview unless confirm:true is set) lives only in the schema, and no auth, idempotency, or side-effect information is disclosed.

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 short but wastes its lines on metadata ('Тег: Хранилище', 'Спека: user') and a raw HTTP path rather than useful semantics. The operation is not front-loaded with anything an agent can act on beyond the bare verb.

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 mutation tool with nested body objects, no annotations, no output schema, and a non-obvious confirm/preview protocol, the description is essentially silent on what is modified, what permissions are needed, and how to avoid the preview mode. It is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the body fields (data, name, created, user_id, settings, user_service_id) and the confirm/admin user_id parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does 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 Russian line 'Изменить данные в хранилище' ('change data in storage') gives a verb+resource, and the raw 'POST /storage/manage' path confirms the operation. However, it is generic and does not distinguish this endpoint from the many storage siblings (user_storage_manage_put, user_storage_manage_delete, user_storage_manage_by_name_post, etc.), leaving the agent unable to tell which storage mutation applies.

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 on when to use this endpoint versus user_storage_manage_put, the by_name variants, or the delete/get tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of the required confirm flow are given, so the agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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