set_lifecycle

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

Discloses that the tool REPLACES existing rules and captures prior config for undo. Warns that undo restores the rule, not the data, and objects expired before undo are permanently deleted. Also explains MinIO's refusal of certain lifecycle rules, going well beyond any annotation.

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 the core action and risk tag, then uses concise sections for usage, exclusions, and warnings. Every sentence carries actionable signal, and the Args section maps directly to schema without redundancy.

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 complex 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and caveats. It even explains the interplay with undo_apply and warns about data loss, making it highly 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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful semantics for all 7 parameters, e.g., 'expire_days: Expire current objects after N days' and 'lifecycle_xml: Full lifecycle configuration XML to apply verbatim.' It also notes bucket_name comes from bucket_ls and dry_run previews without applying.

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 'Replace the bucket lifecycle,' a specific verb+resource, and explicitly states it REPLACES any existing rules. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_lifecycle and bucket_lifecycle_get.

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?

Explicitly provides exclusion guidance: 'Aborting abandoned multipart uploads is NOT available here... Use remove_incomplete_uploads instead.' Also explains the two usage modes (day-count knobs vs lifecycle_xml) and the undo restores context, making alternatives clear.

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