local_ydb_add_storage_groups

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

The description discloses that without confirm it's a plan-only operation and that it verifies NumGroups and tenant metadata after update succeeds. It notes the use of ReadStoragePool definition. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining the two-phase plan/confirm flow, which is valuable context not covered by annotations.

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?

One dense, information-packed sentence front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the plan-vs-confirm behavior. Zero wasted words, appropriate length for a moderately complex tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema absent but the description covers the plan output contents (plan, rollback, target pool, target count) and post-success verification. For a storage addition tool with good schema coverage and annotations, this is reasonably complete. It could mention count validation limits or failure modes, but the essentials are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds context that confirm=true gates execution and references ReadStoragePool definition, but doesn't add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb (add/increase) and resource (storage groups for a tenant storage pool). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the storage pool management domain and ReadStoragePool definition. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like local_ydb_storage_placement, though the purpose is reasonably specific.

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 explains the plan-vs-execute flow (without confirm=true returns plan, with confirm executes). It implicitly tells when to use confirm. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling storage tools like local_ydb_storage_placement or local_ydb_cleanup_storage, so it's clear context but without exclusions/alternatives.

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