compute.plan_storage_adoption

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces that this call alone performs no adoption and that a separate confirmed apply is required, which is meaningful safety context. It also discloses a precondition the annotations cannot express: per-file hash matching against a source checkout for code paths.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the scoping rule, then the conditional code requirement, then the non-mutation guarantee. Slight redundancy between 'explicitly listed' and 'never selects a whole root by default', but nothing is wasted.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the critical scope and safety rules but omits the kind taxonomy and the identifier parameters an agent must still supply. It is adequate to call the tool correctly in the common case but leaves gaps a planner would want filled.

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 carries the burden, and it clarifies paths (relative, explicitly listed), root_id (one root), and source_node_id (required for code adoption). It says nothing about project_id, node_id, run_id, or the meaning of the kind enum values (input/output/disposable/cache), leaving several parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource — planning adoption of explicitly listed relative file paths scoped to one root — which is clearly distinct from the apply/cleanup/reconcile siblings. It does not name those siblings directly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 establishes the operative context: paths must be explicitly listed, whole-root selection is excluded by default, and code adoption additionally requires source_node_id plus a hash match. The two-step workflow (plan now, apply separately with confirmation) is spelled out, though the applying tool is not named.

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