Delete an EOS object storage bucket after confirming it is empty. Use it to remove unused cloud storage buckets safely by specifying bucket name, project ID, and region.
Delete an EOS object storage bucket. The bucket must be empty before deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| project_id | No | Project ID. | |
| bucket_name | Yes | Name of the bucket to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the destructive precondition that the bucket must be empty, but says nothing about irreversibility of the deletion, required permissions, or what happens when the precondition is violated.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint. Every clause carries information, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key precondition. It is nearly complete, lacking only notes on irreversibility and error behavior that a destructive tool would ideally include.
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%, so bucket_name, location, and project_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g. why location/project_id matter for a delete), 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 (Delete) and resource (EOS object storage bucket), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling e2e_create_bucket and e2e_list_buckets. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 precondition (the bucket must be empty before deletion), which is real usage context, but it offers no alternatives, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how to empty a bucket first. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.