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 genuinely new behavioral context: the target is short-lived, it self-expires in one hour, and only one object is affected — telling the agent deletion is low-stakes and time-bounded. It does not say whether a deleted snapshot is recoverable or what happens if the token has already expired.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource and closing with the expiry constraint that motivates the call. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, output schema present so return values need no explanation) and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The remaining gap is the token's provenance and format plus error behavior on an expired or unknown snapshot, which is minor for a one-parameter delete.

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?

There is one required parameter (token) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only indirectly implies the token identifies the dashboard being deleted; it never says the token is the snapshot identifier, where the token comes from (presumably option_import_snapshot), or what an invalid/expired token yields.

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 a precisely scoped resource: a single short-lived imported dashboard, i.e. a snapshot. The phrase 'imported dashboard' maps the name's 'snapshot' to a concrete object, which helps an agent distinguish it from option_import_snapshot or option_chain_snapshot, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call this to remove a snapshot ahead of its one-hour auto-expiry, which frames it as cleanup of a transient artifact. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do for expired snapshots, or whether deletion should precede or follow plotting/strategy extraction) and no named alternative.

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