Delete Scaleway Bucket Policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds significant value by explaining the immediate impact on principals ('Any principal relying only on this policy loses access to the bucket immediately') and the confirm requirement, which goes beyond what annotations state. This helps the agent anticipate consequences, so above baseline but not over-the-top.

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 only two sentences, both front-loaded with the core action and the most critical detail (confirm=true). It wastes no words and earns every sentence, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the action, the required confirm flag, and the consequence of immediate access loss. Combined with annotations, the agent has all necessary behavioral and safety info. It is complete given the low complexity and rich annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (bucket, region, confirm) already having descriptions. The description mentions 'Requires confirm=true' which mirrors the schema's const constraint, adding no new semantic info. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 tool 'Remove a bucket's Bucket Policy entirely,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_bucket_policy and put_bucket_policy by focusing on removal. It also adds a key consequence (immediate access loss) that aids selection.

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 need to delete a policy) and explicitly requires confirm=true, which is a critical usage condition. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the context clear. It falls short of an explicit 'when-not' or naming alternatives, so it gets a 4.

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