liara_delete_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deletion requires specific permissions, what happens to contained objects, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral implications, success/failure responses, prerequisites, or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively despite the simple parameter schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format requirements, naming conventions, or examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a storage bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_delete_object' (which deletes individual objects) and 'liara_delete_app' (which deletes applications). However, it doesn't specify that this deletes the entire bucket structure versus just contents, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., bucket must be empty), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose 'liara_delete_object' for individual items instead. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.

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