minio_remove_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, error handling (e.g., if object doesn't exist), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Remove') and target, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., permanence, errors), usage guidelines, and any details on return values or side effects. Given the complexity and risk of object deletion, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('Name of the bucket', 'Name of the object to remove'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are required for the removal action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 target ('an object from a MinIO bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'minio_remove_bucket' by specifying object-level deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'minio_put_object' (overwrites) or 'minio_copy_object' (moves), which could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., bucket must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for batch deletions), or alternatives like 'minio_remove_bucket' for bucket-level removal. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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