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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about irreversibility, behavior when the id does not exist, or ownership/scope constraints on the snapshot.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps in behavior and parameter detail.

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 one-parameter delete with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the action and target are clear. It falls short on what deletion destroys, error behavior for unknown ids, and how the agent should source the symptom id.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining symptomId. It only contributes the phrase 'by id', which hints the parameter identifies the target but adds no meaning about format, source, or how to obtain a valid symptom id (e.g., from vora_list_symptoms).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a symptom snapshot') plus the identifier mechanism ('by id'), which clearly separates it from vora_add_symptom, vora_list_symptoms, and vora_resolve_symptom among the siblings. The word 'snapshot' is slightly unusual terminology but does not obscure the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus when to use vora_resolve_symptom or vora_delete_observation, and no prerequisites or warnings about the operation being permanent. The agent must infer the usage scenario entirely from the name.

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