snapshot_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It explicitly marks the operation as IRREVERSIBLE, mentions the dry_run preview, and notes that it captures prior state for audit while declaring no undo. This covers the key risks beyond basic mutation, though it omits permission requirements or detailed effects.

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 and front-loaded with the critical WRITE and IRREVERSIBLE flags. The Args list is clear and each sentence serves a purpose, though the audit-record note is slightly extra and could be seen as tangential to basic usage.

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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: irreversibility, dry-run preview, and snapshot_id sourcing. It could further explain expected return values or error behavior, but it sufficiently addresses the primary decision factors for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: snapshot_id format ('dataset@name' with a reference to snapshot_list), dry_run behavior (preview without deleting), and target (TrueNAS target from config). This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 'Delete a ZFS snapshot by id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like snapshot_create and snapshot_list by specifying deletion semantics and id format.

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?

Provides clear context: dry_run=True to preview, and snapshot_id references snapshot_list for lookup. It also states 'declares no undo', which warns against using this tool when rollback is expected, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like undo_apply.

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