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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact nature of the destruction (every object in the bucket), irreversibility ('gone for good'), the safe default that preserves provider data, the provisioning-bucket override, and the required `credentials.delete` permission.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the safe default before the destructive escalation, with no filler. Each clause carries actionable information (default behavior, destructive flag, edge case, permission requirement).

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?

With no output schema and only two fully documented parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted under each mode, what is preserved, the provisioning edge case, and the auth requirement. Nothing material is missing for a destructive mutation tool.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: the override rule that a provisioning bucket is always torn down regardless of destroy_provider_resources, and the consequence of each mode.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop managing an object storage bucket in Ankra') and immediately distinguishes the two behavioral modes: default detach vs. full provider-side destruction. It also anchors to the equivalent CLI command (`ankra bucket delete`), so an agent cannot confuse it with create_object_storage_bucket or get_object_storage_bucket.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for choosing between the two modes ('By default...' vs. 'destroy_provider_resources=true also...'), and flags the special case of a still-provisioning bucket. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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