Set Scaleway bucket visibility (public/private)

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent tool. The description adds key behavioral context: public-read grants anonymous internet READ on all objects and confirm=true is required for that branch; private restores owner-only access. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't touch on reversal side effects or permission requirements.

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 compact: first sentence states the core behavior and parameter relationship, second sentence provides alternative-tool guidance. Every clause contributes, no unnecessary redundancy exists.

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 that the tool has no output schema and relatively few parameters, the description covers the entire invocation context: the meaning of each visibility value, the confirm requirement, the effect on object access, and the relationship to sibling tool. An agent can use this tool correctly without needing additional implicit information.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema documents bucket, region, and confirm. The description adds crucial semantics for the visibility enum and for the confirm flag, explaining exactly what each visibility value does. It adds meaning beyond the schema despite not explaining every parameter in detail.

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+resource ('Set bucket visibility via canned ACL') and clearly distinguishes between the two visibility values, public-read and private. It also mentions the alternative bucket-policy tool, eliminating ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It repeatedly states that this is the 'coarse on/off switch' and that Bucket Policies provide finer-grained control, explicitly naming scaleway_s3_put_bucket_policy. This gives the agent a clear rule for when to choose this tool versus an alternative.

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