local_ydb_reduce_storage_groups

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-readOnly, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it reveals that the tool dumps and restores tenant data, rebuilds the profile stack, may re-apply auth, preserves one-off dynamic node ports, and aborts if a node definition is incomplete. This paints a realistic picture of the tool's operational impact.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds useful information: the rebuild steps, auth reapplying, dynamic node port preservation, and failure-abort behavior. There is no repetition or filler text.

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 complex destructive operation with no output schema and six params, the description provides critical context about the dump-restore process and port-preservation safety mechanism. It lacks an explicit nod to the plan-only/confirm behavior from the schema, but all essential, non-schema-covered behavior is otherwise described. Nearly complete.

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%, with each parameter already described inline (count, confirm, profile, dumpName, poolName, configPath). The description adds some high-level connection to 'dumping' and 'storagePoolCount' but does not enrich individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource combination: 'Reduce NumGroups for a tenant storage pool'. It clearly differentiates from the sibling `local_ydb_add_storage_groups` by focusing on removal and describes the high-level rebuild/restore process that confirms its unique role.

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 clearly implies when this tool should be used: whenever you need to reduce a tenant storage pool's NumGroups. It provides context about the multi-step process (dump, rebuild, restore, auth), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use add_storage_groups instead for increasing capacity'.

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