snapshot_delete

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

Goes well past the annotations: reveals the 'review' audit tier, the NUTANIX_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY / NUTANIX_AUDIT_RATIONALE env vars needed to annotate who/why, that the snapshot's prior name is captured on the audit trail, and that dry_run returns a preview rather than performing the delete. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with risk tag and one-line purpose, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information, though the audit-tier paragraph is dense and slightly heavy for a description whose core job is delete semantics.

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?

A destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotations documenting the audit workflow — the description covers the safety path (dry_run), audit requirements, and deletion scope, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Return shape is only implied ('what WOULD be deleted'), a minor gap.

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%, yet the description documents all four parameters and adds meaning: vm_ext_id comes from vm_list, snapshot_ext_id from snapshot_list, dry_run's exact semantics, and target's defaulting behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a VM snapshot.' The [WRITE][risk=high] tag immediately separates it from read siblings like snapshot_list, and the destructive framing distinguishes it from snapshot_restore/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?

States the preview path explicitly ('pass dry_run=True to preview') and gives operational context for the audit tier, which tells the agent when this call needs extra authorization. It does not contrast against alternatives like snapshot_restore, but the destructive framing implies the boundary.

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