Delete Scaleway bucket encryption config

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is 'live-verified', actually changes the console state to 'Disabled', and is 'not a no-op on inert metadata'. This directly addresses the common concern of whether a delete-style operation truly changes state. The annotation set is thin, and this extra detail helps the agent set expectations.

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?

Two short sentences. The first states the core action; the second adds high-value real-world verification. No filler, no repetition of schema/property names. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool, the schema documents those parameters well, and the description plus annotations are enough to know what the operation does and that it is a real state change. No output schema exists, so return values are not required to be explained. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already provides full coverage: bucket is a required string, and region has a clear enum plus a stated default. The description does not add further parameter explanations, but because schema coverage is 100%, this is acceptable and does not lower the score. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the bucket's default-encryption configuration,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get/put_bucket_encryption. It also states the observable outcome (reverting the console's 'Encryption type' to 'Disabled'), which makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly establishes the context: use this tool to delete/disable a bucket's default encryption configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the action is specific enough that no reasonable alternative is suggested by the sibling list. It stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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