Delete Scaleway bucket CORS rules

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral detail: 'ALL CORS rules' are removed, and browsers will regain no cross-origin access (default-deny). This is meaningful context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 one concise sentence that states the operation and its most important consequence. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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 simple configuration-deletion tool with only two well-documented parameters, the description covers the key context: complete removal and the resulting security behavior. It does not address edge cases such as deleting CORS on a bucket without existing rules, but this is a relative minor gap for such a simple 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both bucket and region in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither complements nor harms the schema's already-sufficient parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Remove ALL CORS rules') on a specific resource ('a bucket'), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes this from related S3 operations like get_bucket_cors and put_bucket_cors by emphasizing complete removal.

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 clear behavioral context: it removes all CORS rules and leaves bucket access in a default-deny state for browsers. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_bucket_cors or put_bucket_cors, but the use case is evident from the wording and sibling tool names.

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