s3_delete_objectDelete a specific object from an S3-compatible bucket by bucket and key. Missing keys are treated as success, but write access must be enabled.
Delete an object. Requires S3_ALLOW_WRITE=true. Idempotent: missing keys (NoSuchKey/404) are treated as success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Object key | |
| bucket | Yes | Bucket name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the S3_ALLOW_WRITE=true gating requirement and idempotent handling of missing keys (NoSuchKey/404 treated as success), which materially affects error handling.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action, then precondition, then idempotency semantics. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, the authorization precondition, and the error/idempotency semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 100% ('Object key', 'Bucket name'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about bucket/key formats or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an object') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the read/list/head/put siblings. The title and name reinforce the same precise meaning with no ambiguity.
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?
It gives a hard precondition ('Requires S3_ALLOW_WRITE=true'), which is useful context for deciding whether the call will succeed, but it never contrasts when to use this versus siblings like s3_put_object or s3_head_object. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.