bucket_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers. It discloses irreversibility, the emptiness requirement, that noncurrent versions and delete markers count toward emptiness, and the no-mass-delete policy. It doesn't state auth/credential requirements or what happens on non-empty delete (refusal response shape), but covers the critical behavioral traits well.

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?

Tight, front-loaded: risk tag, one-line purpose with the core safety constraint, then a sentence on preview and emptiness semantics, closing with a compact Args block. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers purpose, conditions, preview behavior, parameter semantics, and the emptiness-check nuance including noncurrent versions/delete markers. Minor gaps: doesn't describe the refusal response or confirm what return value signals success, and no auth/credential notes. Strong but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does. Each of the three parameters (bucket_name, dry_run, target) is given meaningful prose: eligibility/refusal semantics, preview behavior, and config-source. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys despite zero schema-level docs.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Delete a bucket') with explicit safety condition ('refused unless verifiably empty') and irreversibility warning. The [WRITE][risk=high] tag and detailed first line distinguish it from sibling read-only tools like bucket_ls, bucket_info, and bucket_quota_get, and from policy/versioning setters.

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?

States when to use (delete a bucket) and provides explicit safeguards: refused unless empty, dry_run preview option, and the tool never mass-deletes to force emptiness. Includes bucketing vs alternatives implicitly by being the only delete-bucket sibling. 'Bucket name (from bucket_ls)' provides acquisition guidance.

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