Delete Scaleway bucket lifecycle rules

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

The annotations already set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, establishing this as a non-idempotent destructive operation. The description goes well beyond the annotations by proactively disclosing the inverse safety risk: removing rules stops pending deletions, causing objects to survive that would have been deleted. It also reveals the safety mechanism 'requires confirm=true', which the schema also documents. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 at two sentences, immediately front-loading the all-removal scope in the first sentence. Every clause earns its place: the scope, the confirm requirement, the behavioral consequence, and the contrast to putting rules. There is zero fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, all schematically covered, no output schema, clear sibling alternatives), the description is complete. It explains the operation's effect, its dangerous directionality, and the mandatory safety parameter. No output schema exists, but the side effect of removing rules is adequately described. No behavioral dimensions remain unaddressed.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds value by semantically linking the 'confirm' parameter to its requirement and purpose as a safety gate. However, it does not elaborate on 'bucket' or 'region' beyond what the schema provides. A score of 4 is appropriate because the description enhances the meaning of the most consequential parameter.

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 a specific verb-resource combination ('Remove ALL lifecycle rules') and distinguishes the scope ('ALL') effectively. It distinctly separates this tool from its sibling scaleway_s3_get_bucket_lifecycle (which reads) and scaleway_s3_put_bucket_lifecycle (which creates/updates). The description precisely identifies the operation as a wholesale removal rather than a targeted rule deletion.

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 explicitly states a critical prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') and provides exceptional when-not-to-use guidance by explaining the dangerous consequence of removal: 'objects that would have expired keep living (rule removal stops pending deletions - dangerous in the opposite direction of putting rules).' This directly helps an agent decide whether to call this tool versus modifying or reading lifecycle rules instead.

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