minio_remove_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the bucket must be empty, which is a critical constraint, but doesn't cover other important aspects like permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions (e.g., if the bucket doesn't exist), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and constraint ('Remove an empty bucket from MinIO'). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), error handling, and what the tool returns (since there's no output schema). For a removal tool, this leaves the agent with critical gaps in understanding how to use it safely and effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'bucket_name' clearly documented as 'Name of the bucket to remove (must be empty)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3. The description's mention of 'empty bucket' reinforces the schema's constraint, slightly enhancing clarity, warranting a score of 4.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('an empty bucket from MinIO'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'minio_remove_object' (which removes objects rather than buckets) or 'minio_make_bucket' (which creates buckets), missing an opportunity for full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use this tool (to remove empty buckets) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify what happens if the bucket isn't empty or whether there are other bucket management tools to consider, leaving usage context somewhat incomplete.

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