delete_r2_bucket

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true), the description adds critical behavior: the requirement for empty buckets, the confirm gate, and the preview-only behavior without confirmation. This fully discloses the tool's execution model.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The most critical information (action, resource, condition, gate) is front-loaded and presented efficiently.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not mention return values or success/failure indications. While the preview behavior is described, the overall completeness for a delete operation is adequate but not fully detailed.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context (e.g., the 'empty' condition for name, the gate purpose for confirm), slightly augmenting the schema's built-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?

Clearly states 'Delete an (empty) R2 bucket', specifying both the action and the object. Differentiates from sibling delete tools by naming the specific resource type and condition (empty).

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?

Describes the human-approval gate with 'confirm:true' and preview behavior when omitted, giving clear usage guidance. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use or comparisons to alternatives, but the condition 'empty' suffices for context.

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