delete_bucket_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags [WRITE], risk level, states reversibility via undo with prior JSON captured, and implies default-to-private behavior change. The dry_run parameter also provides safety preview behavior. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the write/risk tag before diving into args. Each line earns its place. The args block is formatted cleanly. Slightly verbose with the reversibility note placement but overall economical.

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 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description addresses the key context: bucket_name source, dry_run behavior, target default, reversibility, and resulting state (private/default). The main gap is not describing what the response/return value looks like, but absent an output schema this is a reasonable completeness level.

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 for param documentation. It does address all three params: bucket_name (from bucket_ls), dry_run (preview without removing), and target (MinIO target from config, default). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema but is terse—just enough description without depth.

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 tool removes the bucket policy, returning it to private/default state. The verb 'Remove' combined with the specific resource 'bucket policy' and the outcome (back to private/default) provides clear purpose. While there's a sibling 'set_bucket_policy' that would logically contrast, the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from it, just the name implies deletion vs setting.

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 [WRITE][risk=medium] prefix and 'Reversible' note provide context on when it's appropriate to use. The sibling set_bucket_policy exists, and the write/risk markers distinguish this as a mutating operation. However, explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance is only lightly implied rather than spelled out.

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