Create a new S3 bucket in an existing account. Specify bucket name and confirm to proceed.
Создать новый бакет в существующем S3-аккаунте (s3/create_bucket).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket | Yes | Имя бакета | |
| confirm | Yes | Нужно true, чтобы выполнить операцию. | |
| account_id | No | ID S3-аккаунта (если требуется; уточняйте через s3_get_users) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not contradict annotations, but it doesn't disclose side effects, costs, or confirmation requirements beyond what the schema already provides.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. The parenthetical endpoint reference is minor and does not detract. It is front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite.
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 create operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenario. It notes the existing-account prerequisite and aligns with the confirm parameter requirement. It lacks details about uniqueness or error handling, but these are not critical for an agent to call it 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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter values or usage, only stating the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter details.
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 states the exact operation: creating a new bucket in an existing S3 account. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of existing account distinguishes it from sibling s3 tools like s3_create_account or s3_delete_bucket.
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 the prerequisite of an existing S3 account by saying 'in existing S3-account', which is a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.