edgegate_disconnect_byo_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Destructive', requires owner role, mentions the 409 refusal behavior, and describes the safe paths. It even discloses the post-deletion behavior ('stops attempting to read from your bucket'), leaving no ambiguity about consequences.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by key behavioral details and caveats. No redundancy or filler; every sentence adds necessary information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: action, effect, failure mode, alternative steps, and required permissions. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely and understand potential outcomes.

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 schema has only one parameter (workspace_id) with no description, and the description also does not explicitly explain this parameter. However, the tool name and description clarify that it operates on the workspace's BYO grant, making the parameter's purpose implicit. The description does not add direct parameter-level detail, but the context is sufficient for a single obvious UUID field.

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: 'Delete the workspace's BYO storage grant.' It uses a specific verb with a specific resource and explains the effect ('EdgeGate stops attempting to read from your bucket'). This distinguishes it from siblings like register/check/attach BYO bucket tools.

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 clear when-to-use context, including a precondition ('Requires owner role') and a conflict condition ('Refuses (409) if artifacts still reference it') with explicit safe paths forward ('rotate External ID via dashboard, or drop the artifacts first'). This effectively guides the agent on how to handle the operation and alternatives.

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