rbd_snapshot_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that deletion is irreversible, marks the operation as write/high-risk, and explains that dry_run previews without deleting. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it does not describe return values or preconditions such as protected snapshots.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action and risk statement, a practical preview tip, and a clean Args list. Each sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 simple but destructive delete operation, the description covers the action, all parameters, and the safest invocation pattern. It could be slightly more complete by noting prerequisites (e.g., snapshot protection/clone constraints) and success/error response expectations, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: pool_name, image_name, snap_name, dry_run, and target. It adds practical meaning beyond the schema titles, especially the default behavior for target and the preview semantics of dry_run.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous action: 'Delete an RBD image snapshot.' It also marks the operation as a write with high risk and notes irreversibility, which clearly distinguishes this destructive tool from read-only Ceph status siblings and from rbd_snapshot_create.

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 clearly indicates this is for deleting an RBD snapshot and provides a practical usage safeguard: 'Pass dry_run=True to preview.' It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the action and preview guidance give clear context.

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