clear_default_retention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation with medium risk, that it is reversible, and that object lock cannot be disabled via S3. It also clarifies that existing objects keep retention, which is critical behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear action statement, behavioral notes, and parameter list. Every sentence is informative, including the risk tag and reversibility note, with no fluff.

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 no output schema, yet the description adequately covers the operation's purpose, side effects, and parameters. It could mention error cases or return values, but for a mutation tool with dry-run described, it is nearly 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 0%, but the description compensates with a dedicated Args section explaining each parameter: bucket_name (required with object lock enabled), dry_run (preview behavior), and target (MinIO target, default). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 'Remove the DEFAULT retention rule' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_default_retention and set_object_retention by specifying it clears the default rule and noting object lock remains enabled.

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 on when to use the tool by explaining the effect: future uploads become unprotected while existing objects retain retention. It also mentions the dry_run parameter for preview, aiding decision-making. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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