minio_make_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't describe important behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the bucket already exists (error? overwrite?), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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 mutation tool (bucket creation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or provide any operational context. Given the complexity of a write operation in a storage system, more completeness is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'bucket_name' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain naming constraints, format requirements, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new bucket in MinIO'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'minio_remove_bucket' or 'minio_list_buckets', but the verb 'Create' provides inherent distinction from those operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if bucket already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'minio_bucket_exists' for checking existence first.

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