set_bucket_quota

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by declaring [WRITE] with risk=medium, stating reversibility, and noting the admin credential requirement. However, it doesn't disclose what the response looks like, whether effects are immediate/propagated, or the error behavior. The dry_run flag adds valuable transparency for a mutating 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 organized with a header line for risk/reversibility, a credential note, and a clean Args block where each parameter gets exactly one line of explanation. No wasted words; 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?

For a 4-parameter write operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: how to clear via 0, the dry_run safety mechanism, credential requirements, and reversibility. It lacks return-value details and edge-case behavior, but for a quota-setting tool with dry_run safety, this is reasonably 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% and there are no enums to help, so the description must compensate. It does: bucket_name specified as 'from bucket_ls', size_bytes clarified as '0 clears', dry_run explained as 'preview without changing', and target explained as 'MinIO target name... omit for default'. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema types.

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's purpose with a specific verb+resource ('Set or clear the bucket hard quota'), explicitly notes both operations (set >0, clear 0), and distinguishes it from siblings like bucket_quota_get, set_bucket_policy, and set_versioning by focusing specifically on quota as the resource. The operation is unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes credential requirements ('Needs admin-capable credentials') and includes a dry_run capability for previewing changes. It implies context for when to use vs quota_get but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use. The [WRITE] tag and admin requirement serve as effective usage gating.

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