delete_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It merely states the action with no mention of permanence, irreversibility, idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if the key does not exist), or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a critical gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the exact action and scope efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description still lacks essential context for a mutation tool: it does not state that the operation is destructive and permanent, what happens on non-existent keys, or any preconditions. With no annotations, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not. While 'bucket' and 'key' are fairly self-explanatory names, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It does not clarify formats, required vs optional, or relationships between them.

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 'Delete an object from a bucket' uses a clear verb (delete) and resource (object) with explicit scope (from a bucket). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like delete_bucket (deletes the bucket itself) and put_object (writes). No ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It does not mention that this deletes a single object rather than a bucket, or that it is the counterpart to put_object/get_object. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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