clear_default_retention

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

Annotations already declare destructive and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: reversibility to the prior rule, the fact that object lock stays enabled (S3 has no disabling call), that existing retained objects are unaffected, and that future uploads become unprotected. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with a risk tag and one-line purpose, followed by precise caveats, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds distinct information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers reversibility, scope limits, and side effects, so an agent knows exactly what will and won't change. Nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: bucket_name with a precondition (object lock enabled), dry_run with semantics (preview without clearing), and target with its config source and default-omission behavior. Minor gap: no format details for target/bucket_name.

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 (clear/remove) and resource (DEFAULT retention rule), explicitly scoped to the rule rather than the bucket's lock config. An agent can distinguish it from set_default_retention and set_object_retention without opening a schema.

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 clarifies the narrow scope ('clears the rule only') and implies when it applies versus object-level retention operations (objects already carrying retention keep it). It lacks an explicit named alternative or when-not condition, but the effect-based framing gives clear context.

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