compute.apply_storage_plan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds that this is a gated action needing fresh human approval plus a confirm flag. However it does not disclose what the apply actually mutates or destroys, whether it is idempotent, whether partial failure is possible, or what a repeated apply does. Against a low annotation bar this is adequate but shallow 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the safety precondition immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

It covers the essential safety gate for a mutating tool with no output schema, which is the most important information. But given a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no return documentation, leaving 'resume' unexplained and not saying what a successful apply yields (or what happens on failure) is a noticeable gap.

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 all three parameters rely on the description, and it only illuminates one: confirm, whose required value (true) and approval context are stated. plan_id is only obliquely referenced ('one reviewed plan') and resume is never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess whether it continues an interrupted apply.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('one reviewed cleanup or adoption plan'), which clearly separates it from the planning siblings such as compute_plan_storage_cleanup, compute_plan_storage_adoption, and compute_get_storage_plan. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g. reconcile) or state scope in terms of plan state.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: 'Requires fresh human approval and confirm=true.' That is a real when-to-use gate rather than implied usage. It stops short of 5 because it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to use compute_reconcile_storage_plan or compute_get_storage_plan instead, or when a plan should be re-planned rather than applied).

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