set_legal_hold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation with medium risk, that it is reversible, and that dry_run previews changes without applying them. It also notes the object-lock prerequisite, though it does not cover permissions or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with a WRITE/risk tag and a one-line summary, followed by concise behavioral context and a tight Args list. No sentence is wasted; the format is scannable and information-dense.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers every parameter, explains the core behavior, prerequisites, interaction with retention, and reversible nature. The agent has enough context to decide when to invoke and how to construct arguments.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: bucket_name requires object lock enabled, object_name is the key from bucket_objects, hold_on semantics are explicit, version_id defaults to current version, dry_run previews, and target is the MinIO target. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a legal hold on/off.' It clearly distinguishes legal hold from retention, noting it is the one WORM control reversible by design, which differentiates it from sibling tools like set_object_retention.

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 for when to use this tool, explaining legal hold behavior and its interaction with retention ('lifting the hold does not make an object deletable while its retention still runs'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the contrast with retention is sufficient to guide tool selection.

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