write_storage

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses critical behaviors: null values delete keys, existing keys are preserved, missing groups/keys are created, and only owners/admins can change scope or publicData. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core operation is stated first, followed by the essential merge rules and permission constraints, and every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and nested object parameters, the description covers the key operational details: create/update behavior, merge/deletion semantics, automatic creation of missing groups/keys, and ownership restrictions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining how userData/publicData keys are merged, how null deletes keys, and how missing groups/keys are created. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'scope' beyond the enum values or describe the key semantics beyond the schema's pattern.

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 opens with 'Create or update a storage entry,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from read_storage, delete_storage, and generic write_create/write_update tools. The MERGE semantics further clarify exactly what kind of mutation this performs.

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?

The description gives clear context by framing the tool as the write path for storage entries and explaining the merge behavior, so an agent knows this is the tool for creating or updating storage entries. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough to route correctly.

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