manage_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool can 'delete' storage, implying destructiveness, but it does not warn about permanence, permissions, or confirm requirements. It also omits the `dry_run` option and output behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds actionable field guidance. No wasted words.

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 9 parameters and 4 actions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers core purpose and create/update field requirements, but omits critical context: return values, deletion semantics, how `dry_run` works, and the distinction between `fields` and `fields_json`. This is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke all actions.

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?

The description reinforces key parameter requirements: 'For create/update, pass the storage fields in `fields`' and lists required and optional subfields. While this mirrors the schema's description for `fields`, it brings the information to the top level. However, it does not elaborate on `confirm`, `dry_run`, `storage_uuid`, or `instance`, which the schema partially explains. Given 56% schema coverage, the description adds some but not enough compensation.

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 clear multi-verb statement: 'List, create, update, or delete persistent volume storage for an application, database, or service.' This identifies both the actions and the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like create_resource or manage_env, so it loses a point on sibling distinction.

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 some situational guidance: it notes that create requires `type` and `mount_path`, and that storage fields go in `fields`. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention that deletion requires confirmation (only in the schema). Usage is implied rather than explicitly laid out.

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