Permanently delete one Agent Vault snapshot and free its storage. Irreversible — confirm with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshotId | Yes | Snapshot id to delete (uuid) | |
| computeApiKey | Yes | Singularity compute API key (dashboard → Settings → API Keys, or minted by `agentvault login`) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly identifies the tool as destructive and irreversible ('Permanently delete', 'Irreversible'), which is important for an agent. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (computeApiKey is required but not mentioned in the description), potential side effects, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if snapshotId is invalid). Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full transparency burden but is only partially fulfilled.
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 description consists of two short sentences: the first states the purpose and the second provides a critical warning. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. The description is front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.
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?
Given the tool is destructive (no annotations) and has no output schema, the description should provide more context about prerequisites (e.g., need for a valid computeApiKey), failure modes, and whether the snapshot must exist. It also lacks guidance on how to obtain the snapshotId (e.g., using vault_list_snapshots). The description covers the core action and irreversibility but leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to infer.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions ('Snapshot id to delete (uuid)' and a detailed computeApiKey description). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters—it only mentions 'Agent Vault snapshot' and 'free its storage', which is already implied. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Permanently delete one Agent Vault snapshot and free its storage' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (Agent Vault snapshot). It clearly distinguishes from sibling vault tools like vault_list_snapshots, vault_subscribe_pro, and vault_usage by explicitly naming the deletion 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?
The description provides a caution to 'confirm with the user before calling' due to irreversibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vault_list_snapshots to find the snapshot ID, or other vault tools). No prerequisites or context for invocation are given beyond the confirmation warning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.