Manage Component Storage

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds context by naming the exact destructive actions (delete removes a key, set writes) and the prerequisite that no operator is created. It does not contradict 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?

Two concise sentences: the first covers purpose and actions, the second covers a key exclusion/precondition. No filler, front-loaded with the core function.

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 CRUD tool with 4 well-documented params, the description covers the essential behavior and prerequisites. It could mention return values for set/delete, but given the schema richness and annotations, it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description largely repeats what the schema already states (e.g., key required for get/set/delete). It adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairing ('CRUD operations on a COMP operator's .storage dictionary') and enumerates the exact actions (list, get, set, delete). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like manage_component or inspect_op_extensions_storage by focusing on the .storage dictionary.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: it is for reading/writing a COMP's .storage dictionary, and explicitly states a precondition ('target COMP must already exist') and an exclusion ('No operators are created'). It does not name alternative tools, but the scope is unambiguous enough for selection.

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