Enable Object Lock on a Scaleway bucket (ONE-WAY, irreversible)

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

The description provides extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: irreversibility (Scaleway rejects disable at XML-schema level), versioning frozen to Enabled, live-verification dates (2026-08-18), and that empty locked buckets can still be deleted. Annotations include destructiveHint=true, which is consistent, and the description adds concrete details.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then irreversibility, then prerequisites and workaround. All sentences are informative. Minor redundancy (title already says ONE-WAY) but overall efficient.

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 an irreversible mutation tool with a prerequisite, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, the one-way nature, prerequisites, workaround for creation, confirmation requirements, and the fact that empty buckets can still be deleted. No output schema exists, but the return value is implicit (success/failure).

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the real-world implications of the 'confirm' parameter (one-way door) and the 'enable_versioning_if_needed' parameter (auto-enable vs. instructive failure), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that this tool enables Object Lock (WORM) on a Scaleway bucket, making it irreversible. It specifies the exact behavior and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., scaleway_s3_get_object_lock, scaleway_s3_create_bucket) by being the only working method to enable object lock on Scaleway, as creating with the flag is silently ignored.

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 the prerequisite (versioning must be enabled) and offers the enable_versioning_if_needed parameter. It notes that creating a bucket with object lock at creation is not possible on Scaleway, positioning this tool as the sole working path. It also implies when not to use (if reversibility is needed) by highlighting irreversibility.

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