Set Scaleway bucket website configuration (full replace)

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations: it states 'FULL-REPLACE' (indicating overwrite behavior), explains the need for confirm=true due to publication of a public endpoint, and mentions the dependency on visibility settings. The annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces these without contradiction. It provides useful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information: what it does, that it's a full replace, the confirm requirement, the endpoint naming, and a cross-reference to a related tool. There is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, required confirm flag, endpoint naming, and a dependency on visibility. It does not explicitly mention that the configuration is a full replace (overwrites existing), but 'FULL-REPLACE' implies that. There is no output schema, so no return value expectations are needed. The description is sufficient for a typical use case, but could be slightly more complete by noting that the bucket must already exist or that the operation is idempotent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the purpose of index_document and error_document ('index document, optional error document') and emphasizes the confirm parameter's role. However, it does not add significant new details beyond what the schema descriptions already provide (e.g., bucket name, region, default values). The description adds marginal extra meaning for the confirm parameter but not enough to raise the score.

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 verb ('Configure'), the resource ('bucket for static-website serving'), and the specific elements ('index document, optional error document'). It explicitly says 'FULL-REPLACE', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bucket_website (read) and delete_bucket_website (remove). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Requires confirm=true because this publishes an HTTP website endpoint for the bucket.' It also explains the endpoint naming convention and directs users to check the console for the exact URL. Additionally, it mentions a dependency on bucket visibility via a sibling tool. While it does not list when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, it gives sufficient context for appropriate use.

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