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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive context: it is a hard delete and backups may persist for up to 7 days. That retention window is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot get from annotations and materially affects whether it should call this.

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 first three sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the remaining three sentences about forum posts, model-provider API keys, and agent-to-agent messages are server-wide prompt-injection boilerplate that has nothing to do with deleting a snapshot. Roughly half the text does not earn its place in this tool's definition.

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 safety profile is well covered between annotations and the 'hard delete / 7-day backup' notes, and there is no output schema to explain. But the unexplained api_key parameter and the absence of any statement about required auth or what remains after deletion keep it at minimum-viable for a destructive mutation.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains `all` well, but `api_key` is never mentioned at all and `snapshot_id` is only implied by 'one snapshot'. With 3 undocumented parameters, two thirds of the surface is left to inference.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete one snapshot') and immediately states the scope variant for the `all` flag, which cleanly separates it from read-side siblings like list_snapshots and load_state. Minor mismatch between the tool name (delete_state) and the resource vocabulary used (snapshot) requires the agent to infer the mapping.

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 condition selecting the bulk mode is stated explicitly ('all of them when all is true'), which is real usage guidance. However there is no guidance on when deletion is appropriate versus save_state/export_state, no prerequisites, and no note on how snapshot_id and all interact if both are supplied.

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