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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the deletion is 'permanent', requires a 'confirmation' step, and applies only to a bucket in a specific state ('archived, unpublished normal'). This goes beyond the raw annotations by describing the operational prerequisites and irreversibility.

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 core purpose and followed by a concise parameter sourcing note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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, complete parameter schema, and annotations. The description adds the essential preconditions (archived, unpublished, confirmation) and parameter provenance, making the tool's behavior clear enough for an agent. It stops short of detailing potential side-effects (e.g., what happens to associated data), but 'permanently delete' implies irreversibility, which is adequate for this destructive operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by telling the agent exactly where to obtain these values ('Get bucket_id and delete.confirmation from bucket_list or bucket_get'), which helps sourcing the correct data. This extra guidance goes beyond the schema's static field descriptions.

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The description clearly states the action: 'Permanently delete an archived, unpublished normal bucket after confirmation.' It uses a specific verb ('delete'), names the resource ('bucket'), and includes preconditions ('archived, unpublished') that distinguish it from sibling tools like bucket_archive or bucket_unpublish. The phrase 'after confirmation' also signals the deliberate destructive nature.

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 context for when to use: for permanently deleting a bucket that meets the 'archived, unpublished normal' criteria, and it instructs to get bucket_id and delete.confirmation from bucket_list or bucket_get. However, it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools for other cases, though the conditions imply the boundaries.

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