Set Scaleway bucket CORS rules (full replace)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that existing rules not in the provided list are removed and explains the effect on browser cross-origin access. This is important because annotations only indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). There is no contradiction with the destructiveHint: false annotation, as removing rules is reversible.

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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second explains the critical full-replace behavior and its effect. No waste, front-loaded, and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with a nested rules array, but the schema is rich with descriptions. The description covers the key semantic of full-replace and the effect on access. No output schema is needed for a setter. The description is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters including the nested rules object. The description itself adds no additional parameter guidance, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 'Set a bucket's CORS rules' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the critical FULL-REPLACE semantics, distinguishing it from get/delete siblings. This is specific, unambiguous, and directly addresses the tool's function.

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 via the full-replace semantics: it is for replacing the entire CORS rule set. It does not explicitly contrast with get/delete alternatives, but this is easily inferred from the purpose and sibling tool names. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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