Enable or suspend Scaleway bucket versioning

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the effect of enabling (keeps all object versions, delete markers instead of removal), the effect of suspending (stops versioning for new writes, retains existing), and irreversible state consequences. However, it does not explicitly mention idempotency or non-destructive nature already hinted by annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 concise at 3 sentences, each sentence adds critical value: first sentence states basic function, second explains core behaviors, third warns about irreversible constraints. No filler or repetition of schema fields. Information is front-loaded effectively.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, some conditional logic), the description provides adequate guidance for safe invocation. It covers state transitions, requirements, and constraints. It doesn't document return values, but no output schema exists, so that's acceptable. A small gap: it doesn't mention whether the operation is synchronous or if there are propagation delays.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it clarifies the behavior of the 'confirm' parameter (required for Suspended) and explains the 'status' enum values' effects (Enabled keeps versions, Suspended stops new versioning). The schema already covers 75% of parameters, and the description compensates well for the remaining semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Set versioning to Enabled or Suspended'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing specifically on bucket versioning operations, and it explicitly contrasts with related tools like scaleway_s3_get_bucket_versioning and scaleway_s3_enable_object_lock.

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 strong usage guidance: it explains when to use Enabled vs Suspended, specifies the requirement for confirm=true when suspending, and warns about irreversible state transitions ('VERSIONING CAN NEVER GO BACK TO never-enabled'). It also includes a conditional failure condition for Object Lock integration, helping the agent avoid invalid states.

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