delete-planner-bucket

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is clear. The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the ETag requirement and the need to fetch it first. This is valuable and does not contradict annotations. The description could further disclose post-deletion effects, but given the annotation coverage, the additional context is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: one line for the purpose and one line for the critical prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the action and the crucial tip. Every sentence earns its place, with zero waste. Excellent structure.

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 destructive tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational requirement (the ETag prerequisite). It does not explain the return format or side effects, but given the simplicity of a delete operation and the schema covering parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention the confirm gate, but that is already in the schema.

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 every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 per calibration, and the description does not compensate with additional details.

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 states 'Delete plannerBucket' with a clear verb and resource. It unambiguously identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-planner-bucket or create-planner-bucket. The purpose is specific and immediately clear.

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 explicit usage guidance via the critical tip: it requires an If-Match header with an ETag from get-planner-bucket (obtained with includeHeaders=true). This tells the agent the necessary prerequisite and sequence. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but it gives clear context for the main workflow.

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