Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool removes snapshots (implying a destructive operation) and processes in parallel, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether removal is reversible, what permissions are required beyond 'admin only' hint, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context, but overall disclosure is insufficient for a destructive batch operation.

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 is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Results for each VM') and could be more specific, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a fair job: it covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a destructive batch tool, it lacks crucial context like error behavior, idempotency, side effects, or output format details. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden, which isn't fully met.

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 compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: vm_names ('List of VM names'), snapshot_name ('Name of snapshot to remove'), and user_id ('Optional user ID (admin only)'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., VM name patterns) or provide examples.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove snapshots') and target ('from multiple VMs in parallel'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_snapshot' (singular) by emphasizing batch/parallel processing, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_snapshot' or 'batch_rollback_snapshots'. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is parameter-specific and doesn't constitute overall usage guidance. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.

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