Set Scaleway bucket encryption config

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming the setting is live-verified and affects the console's 'Encryption type' display. It does not contradict annotations; in fact, it reinforces idempotency by stating it's a real setting. However, it doesn't disclose whether previous encryption settings are overwritten or if any side effects occur.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core action and adding a verification note. The second sentence is informative but slightly longer than necessary; it could be more concise. However, it contains no fluff or repetitive information.

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 tool with 3 params (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is fairly complete. It explains the effect (encryption config set) and the algorithm. It does not explain the return value (likely empty or standard response), but that is acceptable without an output schema. The context is adequate for an AI agent to use the tool 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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by specifying the algorithm is 'AES256' (matching the schema's const), but does not add meaning beyond what's in the schema for 'bucket' and 'region'. The 'algorithm' parameter's const/default are already clear from the schema.

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 the action ('Set'), the resource ('bucket's S3 default-encryption configuration'), and the specific algorithm used ('AES256'). It also adds a note that this is a real, effective setting, distinguishing it from any potential filler. Among sibling tools like scaleway_s3_get_bucket_encryption and scaleway_s3_delete_bucket_encryption, the purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 when to use this tool (to enable default encryption on a bucket), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., IAM permissions, bucket existence). There is no guidance on alternatives or related tools (like scaleway_s3_get_bucket_encryption to check current config).

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