Delete Scaleway bucket lifecycle rules

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the dangerous consequence: 'objects that would have expired keep living (rule removal stops pending deletions - dangerous in the opposite direction of putting rules).' This is critical behavioral context that annotations (destructiveHint: true) do not provide. It also mentions the confirm=true requirement, which is a safety mechanism.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. It includes the critical safety warning without fluff. Perfectly concise.

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 (destructive, requires confirmation, has a dangerous side effect), the description is complete. It covers the action, the safety requirement, and the behavioral consequence. The schema covers parameters, and annotations cover destructive nature. No output schema is needed for a delete operation. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's purpose (safety confirmation) and the dangerous consequence of removal. It doesn't add detail on bucket or region, but those are self-explanatory from the schema. The description's emphasis on confirm=true is a meaningful addition.

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 ALL lifecycle rules' with a specific resource (bucket lifecycle). It distinguishes from siblings like get_bucket_lifecycle and put_bucket_lifecycle by emphasizing the removal of all rules, not just a single rule or configuration.

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: when you want to remove all lifecycle rules from a bucket. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools (get/put lifecycle) are obvious alternatives, and the description's focus on 'ALL' and the confirm requirement provides clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is sufficient.

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