delete_lifecycle

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The [WRITE][risk=medium] tags and 'Reversible → prior config' note add meaningful behavioral context about the operation's safety profile. However, it doesn't detail what happens to active lifecycle behavior during/after removal, whether there's a confirmation prompt, or any timing considerations. The reversible note is useful but the risk disclosure is thin for a destructive write operation.

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 tightly written — a compact header line with [WRITE] and risk tags, a one-line reversal note, and a concise Args block covering all three parameters. No wasted words across roughly 7 lines. Good front-loading of purpose before parameter details.

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 write tool with 3 params, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does cover the essentials: purpose, reversibility, and param semantics. However, it lacks detail on post-removal state (does lifecycle revert to default?), confirmation behavior, and error/edge cases. The sibling set_lifecycle exists, making interplay between them relevant, but the description doesn't address ordering or conflicts.

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 all three parameters. It explains bucket_name (from bucket_ls), dry_run (preview without removing), and target (MinIO target, omit for default). This adds real semantic value beyond the raw schema types and defaults. The only minor gap is it doesn't mention dry_run's default value already in the schema, but that's covered structurally.

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?

Description states 'Remove all lifecycle rules' with a specific verb (remove) and clear resource (lifecycle rules) and scope ('all'). It distinguishes from siblings like set_lifecycle and bucket_lifecycle_get. Could be a 5 but doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling that gets lifecycle rules (bucket_lifecycle_get) or the undo_apply sibling.

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 implies when to use: to delete all lifecycle rules, with a dry_run option to preview. It names 'bucket_ls' as source for bucket_name and notes the target parameter for MinIO config. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives like set_lifecycle or undo_apply, though the [WRITE] and risk markers give context.

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